Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret not having the proper opportunity of giving you notice of this point of order, but I was not able until now to cancel a morning engagement to allow me to be here.
I wish to refer to the points of order that were raised last night about my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I am glad that some food and drink 'was provided to her overnight. However, I understand from the Press Association tapes that the National Coal Board, which is funded by taxpayers and in theory remains accountable to the House, has again renewed its instruction that no food or drink should be supplied to my hon. Friend.
Obviously, the discharge of parliamentary duties involves proceedings in the House as well as our responsibilities in our constituencies. I would ask the National Coal Board urgently to reconsider its position, because in the past you have deprecated any action that seeks to intimidate a Member of Parliament or prevent them from discharging their duties. In this case, the action that my hon. Friend is taking is democratic and entirely peaceful. Also, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which I hope does not become law, the action that she is taking could be held to be a breach of the law. That matter should also be noted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: While I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by my hon.

Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I urge you, Madam Speaker, to inquire whether a statement on this matter will be made by the Coal Minister, in view of the fact that there is a chain of command between Parliament and British Coal, in view of the deprecatory statements that have already been made by the Coal Minister about the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and taking into account the fact that, in October 1992, the then leader of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers went down a coal mine in Nottingham to a great blaze of publicity. He was supported by Tory Members; he was not condemned by the Coal Minister or any Tory Ministers. He was fed continually. The press and television were there constantly. He was sent food from Harrods. Other Tory Members of Parliament visited the mine.
The sharp contrast in the treatment that is being meted out to my hon. Friend as compared to Roy Lynk, the well-known scab, is a matter which should be debated in the House and the Minister should be brought to account. If it is good enough for the scab leader, it is right for a Member of Parliament who is representing her constituents to be treated in a proper fashion, not in the way in which British Coal is meting out such treatment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard enough points of order on the matter—we also had some last night. As I explained then, the hon. Lady has elected to take this voluntary action. She is not there on the instructions of the House or a Select Committee of the House and therefore cannot claim the privileges of the House. She is there in the capacity of a citizen who has elected to take this action. However, I certainly hope that her welfare is not neglected by the Coal Board, and I hope that my words will have been noted by the Coal Board this morning.

Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Speaker: Leave refused.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will agree that there is a rather unusual procedural situation this morning in respect of that motion and the objection. Item No. 8 on the Order Paper shows that, at 2.30 pm or thereabouts, a Question may be put that the adjourned debate on the Bill be put to a Question.
If there is an objection then—even after a debate has taken place on 18 February for three quarters of an hour—that Question cannot be put. The motion that I have just attempted to move would have no such effect and—if carried without objection—would have allowed debate upstairs in Committee, without any time being taken on the Floor of the House from the Government or from any hon. Member. It would have that effect without a decision necessarily being taken in its favour at the end.
Can you confirm that the objection that has just been raised by the Whip on the Government Front Bench prevents further debate on the merits of the Bill without its necessarily being approved, and therefore prevents further debate?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the Standing Order, and he needed leave to proceed as he wished. If one voice is raised in opposition, I must accept that. The hon. Gentleman has an item further on in the agenda, and he may have better luck as we proceed today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What representations have you had, or would you be prepared to receive, concerning objections by one hon. Member to private Members' Bills? That stifles debate and it cannot be said to be acting in the interests of Parliament or democracy in any way.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is already a report on the matter from the Procedure Committee, and perhaps I may refer him to that report.

Orders of the Day — Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

'.—(1) The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 shall be amended as provided in Schedule (Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships) (amendments imposing in respect of non-tankers liability for oil pollution).

(2) In Part I of that Schedule "the 1971 Act" means the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 without the amendments made by Part I of Schedule 4 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

(3) In Part II of that Schedule "the 1971 Act" means the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 as amended by Part I of Schedule 4 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and section 5 of this Act.'.—[Mr. David Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, to move the following Schedule:—

'SCHEDULE

EXTENSION OF STRICT LIABILITY FOR OIL POLLUTION BY SHIPS

PART I

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT

1. After section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies (that is to say a ship carrying a cargo of persistent oil in bulk), then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom; and
(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where—

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but


(b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable, each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. After section 2 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Exceptions from liability under section 1A.

2A. No liability shall be incurred by the owner of a ship under section lA of this Act by reason of any discharge or escape of oil from the ship, or by reason of any relevant threat of contamination, if he proves that the discharge or escape, or (as the case may be) the threat of contamination—

(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon; or
(b) was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner, with intent to do damage; or
(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of a government or other authority in exercising its function of maintaining lights or other navigational aids for the maintenance of which it was responsible."

3. After section 3 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Restriction of liability for oil pollution.

3A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence—

(a) any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship to which section 1A of this Act applies, or
(b) there arises a relevant threat of contamination,

then, whether or not the owner of the ship in question incurs a liability under section 1A of this Act—

(i) he shall not be liable otherwise than under that section for any such damage or cost as is mentioned in it, and
(ii) no person to whom this paragraph applies shall be liable for any such damage or cost unless it resulted from anything done or omitted to be done by him either with intent by him to cause any such damage or cost or recklessly and in the knowledge that any such damage or cost would probably result.

(2) Subsection (1)(ii) of this section applies to—

(a) any servant or agent of the owner of the ship;
(b) any person not falling within paragraph (a) above but employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship or to perform any service for the ship;
(c) any charterer of the ship (however described and including a bareboat charterer), and any manager or operator of the ship;
(d) any person performing salvage operations with the consent of the owner of the ship or on the instructions of a competent public authority;
(e) any person taking any such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (2)(a) of section lA of this Act;
(f) any servant or agent of a person falling within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) above.

(3) The liability of the owner of a ship under section lA of this Act for any impairment of the environment shall be taken to be a liability only in respect of—

(a) any resulting loss of profits, and
(b) the cost of any reasonable measures of reinstatement actually taken or to be taken."

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)—

(a) subsection (1) shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act."

PART II

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT AS AMENDED BY THE 1988 ACT

1. After Section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat of damage caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom; and
(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where—

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but
(b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others, for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section, but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. In section 2 (exceptions from liability), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

3. In section 3 (restriction of liability)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "to which section 1 of this Act applies" there shall be substituted the words "(whether one to which section 1 of this Act applies or one to which section 1A of this Act applies)"; and
(ii) after the words "under section I" there shall be substituted the words "or 1A"; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A.

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)

(a) subsections (1), (1A) and (1B) shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section lA of this Act",

6. In section 20(1) (definitions), in the definition of "ship", after the word "ship" there shall by inserted the words "(subject to section 1A(5))."'.

No. 2, in schedule 3, page 16, line 38, at end insert—

'1971 c. 59. Merchant Shipping (Oil Section 15(1).' Pollution) Act 1971.

No. 3, in schedule 3, page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In Schedule 4, paragraph 12.'

Mr. Harris: The new clause and the amendments would improve the compensation available to victims of marine pollution. At the moment, there is a clear anomaly in the treatment of different kinds of vessels. Only owners of laden oil tankers are strictly liable for marine pollution from oil spillages, but other ships can also pose a threat of oil pollution.
Indeed, it is perhaps not generally realised that a large container ship or cruise ship could in fact have on board about 1,000 or 2,000 tonnes of fuel of one sort or another. Of course, this type of oil can be thicker and more polluting than most types of oil carried in bulk as cargo.
The amendments would extend strict liability to the owners of all types of ships. Strict liability means that owners are liable to pay compensation for marine pollution whether or not they were at fault.
The provisions I am proposing will not affect small ships. You know of my own interest in fishing matters, Madam Speaker, and fishing vessels use light diesel fuel which poses relatively little environmental threat because it disperses quickly. I am pleased to say that they are not at risk as a result of the amendments.
Pollution from laden oil tankers is already covered by the current compensation regime. The international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage in 1969, which was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, places strict liability on the owners of laden oil tankers. This liability covers oil carried in bulk as a cargo, as well as fuel oil that is usually called bunker oil.
Bunker oil carried by other kinds of ships is not covered by the convention. Compensation for spillages may be available through common law, but experience has shown that it can be difficult to establish owners' liability through this means. The House will appreciate that common law is very expensive, and a risky businesses for claimants.
Accidents involving oil tankers always hit the headlines, but all vessels in difficulties pose a threat of pollution because of the fuel oil they carry. Hon. Members who follow these matters will know of a number of recent incidents.
In February last year, a Danish-flagged ship, the Freja Svea, ran aground off the north Yorkshire coast carrying over 1,500 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. Rescue and salvage operations were hampered by severe weather, but fortunately the vessel was refloated. Although there was some spillage, it was relatively minor and most of the oil dispersed naturally. A small amount came ashore and eight tonnes was manually removed from the beach by the local authorities. The incident, however, could have been far worse.
In November last year, two fish processing vessels ran aground in the Shetlands carrying large quantities of fuel oil. I know that that caused a lot of consternation in the Shetland islands. The Russian-flagged Borodinskoye Polye ran on to rocks near Lerwick harbour, and the

Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit removed nearly 600 tonnes of fuel oil from the wreck at a cost of some £650,000—a large amount on that occasion.
In the same month, the Latvian-flagged Lunohods 1 ran aground carrying some 22 tonnes of fuel oil. Yet again, in both cases, major pollution was averted by a combination of good fortune and the prompt action of the authorities. Earlier this month, the Tynesider tug sank in Loch Fyne with about 20 tonnes of fuel oil on board, and arrangements to try to recover the vessel are still in hand.
Those examples show that the threat of pollution from fuel oil is very real around our coasts. My amendments would ensure that, if there were cases in United Kingdom territorial waters, victims who had suffered financial loss would not have to prove liability against the shipowner. That would reduce any uncertainty about whether compensation would be available, and it is not hard to imagine that the uncertainty might be almost as distressing to the victims as the incident.
It is not only the victims of pollution who will benefit. The amendments would also allow the marine pollution control unit to claim against the liable owner for the cost of interventions to prevent the release of bunker oil following a marine casualty, or to minimise the effect of a release once it has occurred.
The amendments also encourage preventive measures to reduce the risk of spillages. The possibility of liability should provide a financial incentive to shipowners to maintain good standards of safety and seamanship. That is important, because, in marine matters, as in all others, prevention is much better than cure.
The amendments are consistent with the concept—I think that it is accepted in all parts of the House—that the polluter should pay. I see no reason why owners of some vessels should be liable for fuel oil spillages, while others are not. I certainly would not want to explain to a constituent that he is likely to receive compensation for oil pollution only if it came from a laden oil tanker. My constituency is just as much at risk as—perhaps more than—any other that has an extensive coastline.
I should explain how the amendments relate to the 1992 protocols and to the 1969 civil liability convention, which also deal with bunker fuel. Under the current wording of the 1969 civil liability convention, oil tankers are liable for bunker fuel spillages only when they are carrying a cargo of persistent oil in bulk. Here is another anomaly. Oil tankers with empty tanks are exempt, even though the tanks might contain a residue of oil.
The 1992 protocols recognise that residue oil can cause pollution, and apply the exemption from liability only to oil tankers whose tanks are clean. The amendments take that one step further by extending the liability for bunker fuel to oil tankers, irrespective of the state or content of their tanks. Other vessels are also covered for the first time.
The other important change that the 1992 protocol makes to the 1969 liability convention is to render shipowners liable for the cost of preventive measures when there is a grave and imminent threat of a release of oil, even if no oil is spilt. That enhanced regime of liability will be applied immediately for bunker fuel.
Historically, shipowners have been allowed to place a limit on the extent of their liability. It is not hard to see that, without those limits, the cost of marine insurance would become prohibitively expensive. Limits of liability vary with tonnage, so that larger vessels are liable for greater amounts. Most vessels limit their liability under the


general liability regime in the 1976 limitation of liability for maritime claims convention, which does not apply if there is a high risk of extensive damage being caused, such as when oil is carried in bulk, which is covered by the higher limits in the 1969 civil liability convention.
The amendments will not affect the way in which shipowners limit their liability, and they may continue to do so for ships that fall within the general liability regime of the 1976 convention. The extension of liability to cover bunker oil that I am proposing does not mean that vessels will be subject to the higher limits of the 1969 civil liability convention. As far as I know, the amendments have the full support of the shipping industry in this country and of the insurance world.
There has been considerable concern about the financial value of the limits in the 1969 and 1976 conventions. Both have been eroded by worldwide inflation. Higher limits for the 1969 liability convention were agreed in the 1992 protocols, which the Bill would allow the United Kingdom to ratify; the International Maritime Organisation, which is situated just across the river, is discussing how to raise the limits in the 1976 convention.
The amendments would not extend to other vessels the requirements placed on large oil tankers by the 1969 civil liability convention for compulsory insurance to the extent of the limit of their liability. Compulsory insurance for other types of vessels is being discussed with the IMO and may be required. In the meantime, it will be for shipowners to choose the best means of providing for their liability, should the need arise.
The amendments provide a welcome addition to United Kingdom maritime law and are not contentious. They would improve the compensation available to victims of oil pollution, without imposing unreasonable demands on shipowners operating off the United Kingdom coast. For those reasons, I commend them to the House.

Mr. James Clappison: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate on the new clause. I appreciate that the matter is not contentious and that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) opened the debate in a masterly fashion with a complete account of the technical details and legal background.
I must declare an interest as an underwriting member of Lloyd's, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said this matter has insurance implications.
I very much support the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved the new clause and I support his remarks on the transfer from common law liability to strict liability, which is important. My hon. Friend argued the case for that transfer very well and I underline everything he said, especially his comments about easing the availability of compensation and creating greater awareness of the need for shipowners to take preventive measures.
Generally, the House rightly regards the imposition of strict liability with some wariness and it should be reserved for the most serious cases, when any breach of that liability will have very grave consequences. However, the case has been well made for transferring to a regime of strict liability. It is also important that there should be easier access to compensation for people affected by a breach of liability because of an oil spillage.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that many legal difficulties stand in the way of people trying to establish such liability under the ordinary principles of common law.

There are many well-known cases. A veritable array of legal minefields lie ahead of those who would establish common law liability, especially in a case that involves technical details of seamanship.
Those who want to obtain compensation would have to establish, among other things, that shipowners breached their duty of care. Speaking as a layman, I envisage that that would be no easy task and that it would require much technical knowledge, many inquiries, much expense and delay, and protracted legal proceedings to establish such a breach of care in the type of cases that my hon. Friend envisages. Strict liability is that much easier to establish and my hon. Friend argued the case very well.
The second limb of my hon. Friend's argument was the need for preventive measures. Strict liability places a great burden on those who are subject to such a regime. When they set out on the activity in question, if they fulfil their duty of care under ordinary common law principles but are nevertheless responsible for a spillage or an incident that causes damage or loss, they will be responsible.
In such an important matter, the House should set the highest and strictest standards, and strict liability is a good example. Shipowners should know that they must act according to the highest standards and go beyond the mere discharge of the ordinary common law duty of care. They will be judged not on whether they are proved to have breached that duty, with all the complications that that entails, but on whether a spillage took place. That should concentrate their minds on preventing such a spillage.
I know that spillages are of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who, as the representative of a region that is apt to be affected by such spillages, no doubt speaks with great knowledge. Awareness of the need for conservation and to protect our coastline is increasing throughout the country, however, and, although I speak for a landlocked constituency, I know that many of my constituents are very interested in the protection of the environment and the wildlife of our coastlines. They would readily agree with the propositions that my hon. Friend advanced in such a masterly fashion.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I also speak as yet another Member who represents a landlocked constituency, and I notice some of my hon. Friends casting curious glances at me. I must declare that I have an interest in a measure that will come before the House later and, having arrived in good time, I was fascinated by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) was moving a new clause to his Bill. I congratulate him on the excellence of his pronunciation of a variety of interesting names.
My constituency would be affected if global warming really took a grip in the next 100 or 200 years, but in the short term I can still recognise the importance of dealing with such problems, given the fragile environment around our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives rightly introduced the new clause and my only question for him and the Minister, whom I welcome, is why it has taken us until now to introduce such a Bill and the new clause, which seem entirely logical and sensible.
How many incidents would have been affected by my hon. Friend's proposal in the past five or 10 years? He gave one or two examples but it would be helpful to understand the scale of the problem. How many cases might have been different, had this legislation been in place previously?
In taking forward this measure now, are we leading the world or following it? What has been the progress of legislation in other countries, both in Europe and other parts of the world? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can assist in answering that question. It is always good when this country leads on environmental matters such as this and it is important that, if we are showing a lead, we should trumpet our progress loudly and clearly.
I was about to say that I shall support my hon. Friend despite those two questions—I notice that they have generated some activity around the Chamber—in the face of whatever opposition he may face. Judging by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, this is not a hugely contentious matter, but we have been ambushed before and I shall be in my place to support my hon. Friend when the matter comes to a vote.

10 am

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am pleased to have an opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris) and pay tribute to him for introducing the Bill. I, too, represent a coastal constituency—one which enjoys clean and tidy beaches, some of which meet the European Community bathing standard. I should not wish anything to happen that would put those in jeopardy. Fortunately, my constituency has been subject to no oil spills, but they have taken place over the years, not just in the North sea but to the west of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend's Bill will, in great measure, assist in the prevention and cure of such problems in future.
I share the impatience of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) to get the matter resolved. However, five years is not a great deal of time to deal with matters that were first discussed in 1989.
May I pick up on a number of points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives? The Bill, including the schedules to it—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the whole Bill. This is not a Second Reading. We are dealing with a clause and others linked to it.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not think for a moment of straying from the straight and narrow. I am not sure what I have said that might have suggested otherwise.
I wish to pick up one or two of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The clause gives effect to the importance of ensuring that those, other than oil tanker operators, who cause pollution are held to account and pay for any pollution that they may create.
I recall the first oil disaster in 1967 caused by the Torrey Canyon—there have been many since then—when a fully laden tanker caused considerable pollution to the United Kingdom shores. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in other cases, tankers not fully laden with oil have cleaned out their tanks in coastal waters off British shores. In those incidences, it is right and proper that those who pollute our shores should be held to account and pay for the pollution.
The polluter should be liable to pay and I congratulate my hon. Friend on moving a clause to ensure that ships that

are not fully laden with oil—they may be not necessarily oil tankers, but carrying other goods—are held to account if they pollute our shores or those of other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to prevention. That is an important issue and I suspect that, under other clauses that we shall discuss later this morning, it will be possible to comment on it further. On what my hon. Friend said, may I lay down a marker in this debate that I am especially concerned about flags of convenience?
It is very well for my hon. Friend to bring forward this important Bill, but these days, an increasing number of ships that fly flags of convenience in international waters may not be captured by the clause, despite the fact that they may cause pollution. I regret the necessity for ships to sail under flags of convenience. The matter also concerns many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment briefly on what I have just said.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives also referred to the extension to bunker oil. That is a crucial part of the Bill, implementing some aspects of the 1969 convention that have not been properly tackled so far.
The clause is most welcome and long overdue, and I hope that the Bill will pass through the House with best speed.

Ms Joan Walley: I am pleased to tell the House that the new clause has our support and I do not intend to be contentious about it.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) asked why it has taken so long for us to debate this matter and put something on the statute book. Perhaps I can give him the answer before the Minister for Transport in London replies on behalf of the Minister for Aviation and Shipping from another place.
It is simply because the Government were not prepared quickly to take on board the lessons of various oil spills, particularly those caused by the Braer. In discussing private Member's legislation concerning other issues, we continually pressed the Government, in the absence of a comprehensive measure to deal with shipping, urgently to introduce legislation to deal with those conventions.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), because it is only as a result of his insistence and the fact that he was prepared to take a ready-made Bill from the Government that this legislation is going forward. Conservative Members should ask the Minister why it has taken so long and why the Government were not prepared to propose legislation in the Queen's Speech to enable us to debate the issue earlier. It is only because we have continually pressed the Government that we have got this far, but I am glad to see that we have, and that we have a possibility to make a few more amendments at this late stage.
I hope that, before the Bill completes its passage, a few more amendments will be made to tighten it up further and deal with the huge issues of pollution around our shores, about which we are all so concerned. However, I want to know whether we are prepared, not simply to pay lip service to that concern, but to do something about it.
I welcome the new clause, because it extends liability for bunker fuel, and any enhanced regime of liability for bunker fuel is welcome. However, I have a slight reservation and I wonder whether there might be an


opportunity to discuss further points that might relate to it as the Bill continues its passage before reaching the statute book.
I ask the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Minister, how can we tackle the problem—which we discussed in detail in Committee—of oil spills that do not necessarily result from an incident or major shipping disaster? When we have evidence that oil has been, perhaps even deliberately, discharged into the sea, but no one admits liability, no one can obtain compensation from anyone, because the source of that oil pollution has not been proved.
I mentioned that problem in Committee on behalf of an organisation called Care for the Wild. The Minister kindly offered me and that organisation an opportunity to discuss the problem in more detail with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, but nothing constructive resulted from those discussions. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping was not prepared to take on board the significant problems that confront us when oil pollutes our shores.
Earlier this year, when there was a considerable oil spill off the coasts of Northern Ireland and western Scotland, voluntary organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals and its Northern Ireland counterpart, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Care for the Wild, all helped with clean-up operations, but they could not prove the source of the oil that was killing so many animals and birds. For that reason, this new clause, welcome though it is, does not go far enough.
I am sure that all hon. Members who have spoken this morning, paying lip service, genuinely wish to prevent further pollution to Southport or wherever else it might be, but if they want to ensure that we have found a way of dealing with those issues, they must accept that there will be instances when the source of the pollution cannot be proved and that we have to take precautionary action to prevent further damage as a result of that contamination.
For those reasons, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I welcome the amendment as far as it goes, but I put on record the fact that I shall look to my learned Friends in another place to see whether, even at this late stage, we can make the new clause watertight.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on the way in which he moved the new clause, which continues the fine tradition that he has already established in the way in which he brought forward the Bill and took it through its earlier stages. He is doing the House and, more important, his constituents and constituents of all Members for coastal constituencies and others, a great service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coornbs) was right to say that there is no reason why those of us who do not have coastline in our constituencies should feel divorced from a measure such as this, because concern for the environment necessarily extends throughout the country and internationally. That is entirely as it should be.
We welcome the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was right to concentrate on strict liability, because at present only owners of laden oil tankers are strictly liable for damage resulting from an oil spill. My hon. Friend is right—I defer to his professional understanding of the subject—that the business of trying to prove liability, and having to muddy the waters in relation to negligence and so on, is extraordinarily complex.
Were it not so, my hon. Friend and many of his friends in this place on both sides of the House would not earn the large salaries they do—long may it continue. However, although I am all for my hon. Friends earning a great deal of money in the law courts as they discuss angels dancing on pinheads, there is a practical reason why, in this sector, it simply is not good enough. I shall expand, to present practically what is happening here.
10.15 am
Let us suppose that a ship is identified. I am advised that it is often identified because, for example, a bird such as those for whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is rightly anxious—I will discuss the detail of her amendment later—is washed up on the shore, covered in oil. That is evidence that something has happened out at sea.
As few vessel masters are keen to own up unilaterally to the fact that an accident has happened or, more cynically, that a deliberate discharge has been made, it is probably the first evidence we have that that discharge is there and that it poses a threat. The oil slick is inexorably on the move. Understandably, in many cases it moves towards the coast, where, if it arrives at the coast unanticipated, the risks multiply considerably and include risks to coastline, to sites and to other types of wildlife.
Therefore, time is of the essence and we cannot afford to put in the minds of those people who might be at risk the idea that they may not wish to incur expenditure, because, if there is any way in which the identified polluter can avoid liability, the likely recipients of the problems, will be left picking up the bill. That is a significant risk when the sums involved can run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives mentioned the unpronounceable vessel, which he made a gallant attempt to define—I shall not attempt to second-guess him lest my attempt is even more ludicrous—and referred to the fact that the incident involved expenditure of £650,000. One does not willingly incur expenditure of that magnitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere was right to say that strict liability should not be used unless there is an overwhelming public interest case for doing so, because that concept determines that the vessel is liable even though there may not even have been negligence; the incident may have been caused by accidents alone. If one employs a principle of that type—the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere was extremely useful—one has to be careful about the way in which one does it.
Let me make it clear that the 1992 protocol changes the 1969 liability convention to make shipowners liable for preventive measures. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives was right to say that the amendment is consistent with another important principle, which I believe that the House will accept, that the polluter should pay. That is, in a sense, what overrides the difficulty that one might otherwise have of moving from provable to strict liability, because where else should the burden lie?
One of the inherent risks that it is not unreasonable to ask any transporter of fuels, or any vessel carrying such fuels, to undertake is the risk of escape, just as we routinely insure businesses, motor cars, premises and ourselves against the risk of our causing third party damage.

Ms Walley: If it is not possible for the polluter to pay because it is impossible to identify the polluter, how can we deal with matters of extreme contamination and pollution?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady's question involves her discussions with my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. On occasions, no vessel is identified at the time or subsequently. In those circumstances, the cost falls either on the Government, generally in cases of offshore activity or, more often, on local authorities when the threat of pollution is likely to affect their coastal environment. There is no question—in that case, the costs are absorbed by the Exchequer, at national or local level.
The hon. Lady raised an important issue concerning the involvement of individual organisations in that exercise. I shall answer the contributions in order and deal with that later.
We welcome the new clause and amendments, because they are helpful and take the Bill an important step forward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, in a helpful intervention, asked why we had not taken action earlier. To clarify the position, I can confirm what I am sure he would expect of one of the world's leading maritime nations—we are in the leading group of nations in terms of applying the convention. The Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands already impose strict liability for spills of bunker fuels, as does the United States. As ever, we are not at the back of the queue when it comes to implementing the convention.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon will not mind if I respond to his understandable impatience by saying that, as he knows, the legislative agenda is full. Last year, when we were discussing merchant shipping legislation, I assured the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, who properly pressed for the conventions to be implemented at an early date, that we would seek an early opportunity to take action.
I hesitate to make a party political point, and I was not anticipating the need to do so, but the hon. Lady has raised the ugly spectre of the body politic, so, merely for the record, I should say that, for all the rhetoric of Opposition Members, it took the prescience of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives—and his good fortune in the ballot—to introduce the Bill.
The nation is indebted not to an Opposition Member, but to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. There have been plenty of words from Opposition Members, but the action has come from my estimable hon. Friend.

Ms Walley: rose—

Mr. Norris: I thought that I might provoke an intervention.

Ms Walley: I certainly would wish to pay tribute, as 'I have already, to the action of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I congratulate him on having managed to obtain an off-the-peg Bill, which the officials clearly had ready. I put that on record.
Given what the Minister has just said about the Opposition's rhetoric, I must ask him whether the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government about giving a commitment to British merchant shipping will mean that,

when we discuss the Finance Bill, the Government will give a commitment to ensure that the measures so urgently needed for British merchant shipping are enacted.

Mr. Norris: I can happily give the hon. Lady the assurance that the package of measures recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—

Ms Walley: Not that one.

Mr. Norris: Those measures, which are tangible and can be delivered, are not what the Opposition want. They are what any decent Opposition—whatever else the hon. Lady is, I am sure that she is that—would want. But the Opposition, as ever, want measures that are beyond the scope of the public purse. I cannot allow myself to stray into the territory of whatever other arrangements my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might make for the good order of the Merchant Navy and our merchant fleet. Were I to do so, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would call me to order. It would not be appropriate to do so now, but it would be a good debate for another time.
I would not dream of suggesting that every word of the Bill was not that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, had not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North let the cat out of the bag. As the cat is running around the Floor, I should make it clear that the Bill is further evidence of the Department's willingness to assist and to take an early lead.
It was not difficult to persuade my hon. Friend, because he is an hon. Member who understands matters maritime. It is not the first time that he has urged improvements in maritime legislation, particularly related to the shipping industry in which he is an expert, to the benefit of the nation.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: rose—

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has an interest in matters related to shipping and the North sea, and I shall give way.

Mr. Dykes: It is important for us to reflect that the Bill, which is so well drafted, is the result of a brilliant incandescent explosion between my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Hams) and the Department. It shows that it is no Government legislation is off the peg, but an original, autonomous creation of great profundity.

Mr. Norris: The description of the measure as an original, autonomous creation of great profundity is how I should prefer to leave the matter, as a sort of tombstone to the legislation.
The subject of the number of incidents covered by the provision was also mentioned. It may surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it certainly surprised me—to learn that we are talking about 20 or 30 incidents a year, which is not an insubstantial number. The business of the House on Friday morning is generally uncontentious Government business, when we deal with matters of less than earth-shattering international importance, but that is not so today. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was right to say that the Bill is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) represents a constituency which is directly affected by the Bill. On this occasion, the Irish sea is affected, but my hon. Friend's constituency contains an important piece of coastline with an important beach which constitutes a huge economic resource for his constituency. It would be


immensely vulnerable in the event of a maritime incident. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport is aware of incidents that have affected the beach at Southport and the Lancashire coastline, and have resulted in great expense and difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised the extremely important issue of vessels that either run under so-called flags of convenience or are not as well financed as those owned by the major shipping groups. His main concern, in his lucid address, was how liability might be enforced. He will know that, ironically, in terms of marine law, that is not as difficult as in other cases, because the powers of arrest mean that the authorities have something tangible that, if necessary, can be auctioned to provide the proceeds.
In limited circumstances, that does not provide the whole answer, particularly if a vessel breaks up completely so that it has only salvage value. If the vessel has no owner of substance and is registered under a flag of convenience, and there is no means of recourse, the burden falls on the public purse. However, in other circumstances, my hon. Friend's concern about the status of vessels should not detain him. That is not an impediment.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North asked a question related not so much to establishing who pays when an incident occurs for which we cannot attribute liability, whether strict or otherwise, but to another matter. In the meeting that she had with my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, she said that charities such as Care for the Wild, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, might want to take prompt action on spills and subsequently be reimbursed by the Government.
I make it clear that, in the main, the issue does not relate to Government per se, because, as I said earlier, generally the main source of action after such incidents is the local authority. If the organisation wants to make representations to the local authority, it is able to do so.
10.30 am
My noble Friend shares with me one or two concerns that do not make it possible for us to go quite as far as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North would like. In a sense, the first concern may sound challengeable, but it is not meant to be, because we all appreciate the good work of charities.
If I may unusually refer to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have some experience of animal charities. I wonder whether you and some hon. Members share my view that when an organisation that is concerned with a particular feature of life is a charity, it does not necessarily sit well with that concept for that charity to demand reimbursement from Government for its work.
That is not to say that there are not perfectly proper cases when a large charity will need to have costs reimbursed. That applies especially if it is invited to 'take on work that it would not otherwise be able to discharge. I have been associated with charities that have worked for Government Departments and have been reimbursed for that work. That is perfectly consistent with their general charitable aims.
The hon. Lady's proposition was that charities such as Care for the Wild should, for example, be able to pass on to the Government the cost of their work. No one denies the commitment and care of such charities, and I readily

place that on the record and endorse it. The issue of who pays can be seen in another context. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is a perfectly good example of the fine borderline between where Government responsibility ends and charitable opportunity begins.
There is a strong feeling that it is precisely because there is such work that the charities have been set up. The hon. Lady will know that, in the Shetlands in the wake of the Braer incident, and in incidents elsewhere, some of the beneficiaries, ironically, were the charities associated with disasters in such areas. I understand that there is some dispute between the charities about who ought to benefit, and whether some charities have jumped on the back of the incident to try to exploit it to gain funds. However, that is not a debate for this place.
I am concerned that, generally speaking, it is not good practice to allow organisations or individuals to make retrospective claims for costs incurred without authorisation. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House consent, I should appreciate an intervention from the hon. Lady to clarify the subject. It is quite clear that, if we are to work in such circumstances, there must be notional authorisation in advance of the work. Almost of necessity, the work to be carried out cannot be described precisely, but we can at least set the contractual arrangements between the parties in a proper context.
While the general principle will be that charities will respond from resources raised by public subscription to the demands and challenges that such incidents present, and generally speaking on their own initiative, that is not to say that the Government would not wish fully to discharge their own obligations and employ whatever agencies were appropriate.

Ms Walley: I sense that there is not much difference between the way in which the Minister and the Opposition perceive the issue. The impression I get from him is different from that which I receive from the Minister for Shipping and Aviation.
I should like to raise two issues. First, in the context of charities, we are talking about a situation that needs not only an immediate response but some expertise. Neither the marine pollution control unit, or whatever it is now called under its executive status, nor the local authorities necessarily have the specialist expertise to respond immediately. That was why the issue was raised with me by the charities in the first instance.
Secondly, the Minister spoke about the retrospective nature of the work. I would not suggest, and have not suggested, that somehow or other we should consider an amendment that would give an open cheque book to various voluntary organisations to spend money on no one's behalf and then submit claims. Perhaps in the debate on the next amendment there will be more opportunity to debate that matter.
If the marine pollution control unit had the expertise to act quickly, we might be in a different situation. But, because it does not, we must formulate some contractual arrangements. If amendment No. 2 were accepted, the person appointed by the Government to take immediate charge in a particular situation could perhaps immediately assess it, recognise that neither the local authority nor anyone else had the expertise on hand to deal with it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. I think that she knows my view about short interventions. I am afraid that I cannot allow her to continue.

Mr. Norris: I take the hon. Lady's points. I invited her to set her concerns out more clearly and I apologise if that has embarrassed her.
I shall respond to the two issues that she raised. I am grateful that, rather unusually, more light is being shed on a subject on the Floor of the House than might have been apparent previously. It is important to accept the principle that if work is to be considered eligible for any kind of public compensation, it must have appropriate prior authorisation. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that.
I suspect that there has been some wariness about this whole issue. The understandable enthusiasm of those who are passionately committed to the protection of, in this case, wildlife—birdlife—leads them to want to act rather more quickly than is prudent in what the hon. Lady quite properly describes as emergencies. I made that point when I spoke earlier about the justification for strict liability.
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady about expertise. It is inescapable that, occasionally, a particular skill is not in the public sector or in the conventional private sector but in the charitable field. As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspect that you have some personal experience of that. I certainly do.
It follows that, if the Government are properly to discharge their responsibilities in relation to clean-up, irrespective of a subsequent ability to transfer liability for the costs, occasionally such work will need to be carried out. The Department has not been backward in that respect. Substantial expenditure has been incurred in clean-ups of one sort or another where wildlife has been affected. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those issues during this helpful exchange.
I will draw our exchanges to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister and ensure that full account is taken of them. If necessary, discussion with the hon. Lady can continue, to what I am sure will be a fruitful conclusion. We are referring not to a particular incident but to a general and helpful principle.
This has been a useful debate on key amendments to the Bill that the Government wholly welcome. I reiterate my congratulations to my hon. Friend and gladly commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

MARINE POLLUTION INCIDENT CONTROL MANAGER

(1) The Secretary of State may appoint, and make provision in relation to the functions and powers of, a marine pollution incident control manager in respect of any specific incident or incidents.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the functions of the marine pollution incident control manager shall include the taking, promoting or co-ordinating of measures to reduce and minimise the effects of a specified incident or incidents.

(3) In the exercise of the functions conferred by subsection (1) above, the marine pollution incident control manager may ask the Secretary of State to give directions to specified local authorities or to the owner of any ship to or in which an accident has occurred, and the Secretary of State may give such directions if he thinks fit.

(4) It shall be the duty of any authority or owner to whom such a direction is given to comply with it.'.—[Mr. Merchant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, after 'taking', insert 'promoting'.
No. 6, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
'(e) the preparation and maintenance of a marine pollution emergency plan in consultation with such shipping and local authority interests as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.'.
No. 7, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
'(f) the publication of annual report on marine pollution control which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.'

Mr. Merchant: The new clause and amendments are intended not to be hostile to the Bill, but to strengthen it without altering its intention or emphasis. I am most supportive of the Bill and take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on piloting it through the House.
I should have liked to speak before in support of the Bill, not because I have a constituency interest—my constituency, like those of many of my hon. Friends, is landlocked—but because it is important that environmental and pollution issues are not categorised into blocs as though they have no effect on other areas. We are all affected by the environment and by pollution, whether at sea or on land, and it is in everyone's interests that the Bill should reach the statute book as quickly as possible.
New clause 2 builds on the spirit of the Bill and particularly on clause 6, which defines the Secretary of State's powers and duties. It emphasises his function of
taking, or co-ordinating, measures to prevent, reduce and minimise the effects of marine pollution.
It gives him the power to acquire, maintain, use and dispose of ships, aircraft, equipment and other property; provide necessary research and training; and liaise with other bodies.
The Secretary of State is not expected to perform those functions personally—to roll up his sleeves, go down to the beach and start scrubbing off oil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] At least, I do not believe that he would: He will not even go to the beach with a team from his private office, but must, to some extent, perform those functions at arm's length.

Lady Olga Maitland: Perhaps he will send one of his Ministers.

Mr. Merchant: Yes, no doubt he will send one of his assistants. In practice, the Secretary of State will probably operate through the marine pollution control unit, but there needs to be specific leadership, particularly, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Ms Walley) mentioned earlier, in the case of severe incidents.
The main thrust of new clause 2 is to ensure the absence of any confusion over who should take responsibility and provide leadership in the event of severe incidents. Subsection (1) provides for the appointment of a marine pollution incident control manager—one person specifically charged with responsibility for undertaking the functions and powers given to the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) emphasises the manager's functions in taking and co-ordinating, but also promoting, measures to


reduce the effects of an incident. That promotion is an important addition in strengthening responsibility and powers.
Subsection (3) concerns liaison with local authorities in particular, because they have an important part to play in pollution incidents. They are on the scene, are responsible for the areas that probably bear the brunt of land pollution and are more likely to be immediately aware of possible dangers and their impact on the community. Clear and effective liaison between the Government and local government is most important and I am not sure that the Bill currently caters for that. Subsection (3) will also meet some of the concerns expressed about the role of local authorities and liaison.
Subsection (4) gives the manager the authority to exercise his powers over other parties involved, because, as we all know, a number of different private and public sector organisations necessarily become involved.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that if new clause 2 were added, it would be vital that not only local authorities but shipowners were consulted by the control manager? If an overall view is to be taken in preventing pollution, it is vital that shipowners as well as local authorities play a part.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. When pollution incidents occur, not just local authority and state institutions must be dealt with but private sector organisations—many of which are of an international character. I am glad that the major organisations representing the shipping industry are most supportive of the Bill. I believe that there will be little difficulty in ensuring such liaison, if the will is them—and I believe that it is—provided that the method adopted by the Bill is satisfactory. I am trying to ensure that.
We all know from past incidents that one of the biggest potential problems is delay between the start of the incident and its resolution. The no-cure, no-fee doctrine—which I would not condemn out of hand, because it is in many ways successful—can delay the process by which a pollution incident is resolved. I cite two incidents in particular in which delay had an important and deleterious impact. The first, many years ago, was the Penlee disaster, when arguments over the terms of the salvage delayed dealing with that unfortunate disaster. More recently, the Amoco Cadiz incident is burned in the minds of many of us because of the extensive press coverage that it received. It subsequently became clear that the ship's master had hesitated, even though tugs were present and ready to render assistance. As a result, the problems were severely compounded.
The Lloyd's open form arrangement assisted considerably by allowing for the payment of expenses and a percentage of the ship's value to salvors, and providing for a bonus to be paid to a salvor if best endeavours had been used to prevent oil from escaping from a vessel. However, the operation of that system relied, at least to some extent, on the good will and judgment of the ship's master and that might be somewhat variable, because he has to decide to enter into or sign a Lloyd's open form. The point is that if he delays until the last moment, a ship could easily founder, even if tugs are at hand to give help.
In 1981, the royal commission welcomed the open form, but added:

However, we think that the main answer to the problem of dealing with tanker casualties in order to reduce pollution lies in the ability of Government to intervene.
My new clause and related amendments seek to deal with that.
My second concern is that of early intervention. It is very important in marine incidents and accidents for the authorities to be able to intervene at an early stage if it becomes clear to them that there is considerable danger. I refer to the beginnings of a leak, which is the most obvious display of potential risk, or, even earlier, loss of power or control over navigational instruments, and so on. That happened in the case of the Braer. In that incident, intervention was reasonably early, but one knows of cases where that did not happen and it is important to ensure that the system is so set up as to make early intervention easy, possible, legal and capable of being carried through.
My third concern is that it is important to ensure that there are enough tugs, salvage vessels and so on ready at hand, or at least available, to deal with potential incidents. That concern was raised during discussion of the Bill. My new clause and amendments seek to ensure that, by planning and doing the necessary back-up, preparation and emergency plan work, the issue is tackled and details kept of vessels that are available, where they are and how they can be brought into operation.
My fourth concern is about direct intervention. Leadership is very important. The Marine Accident Intervention Board drew that to the attention of the Government after the Braer incident. It recommended that there should be delegation to the chief officer of the marine pollution control unit and to someone on the ground at the scene who would have first-hand knowledge of events in what would be extremely tense moments when information has to be available minute by minute.
That, specifically, is what I am referring to when I propose that a manager should be appointed to deal, on the scene, with incidents and the problems that flow from them as they arise. If one likes, I am drawing on the board's recommendation.
My fifth concern is that it is important that adequate emergency plans are available in a worked-through, written, properly compiled form. It is really only an extension of the motto, "Be prepared", but local authorities and Government Departments have such emergency plans ready for a range of different, potential disasters. Over the years, after disasters have occurred, report after report has drawn attention to the need for such plans or, if they were absent, to the fact that there were no emergency plans. We should not wait for another disaster, followed by an inquiry, to learn that, had a proper emergency plan been drawn up, rehearsed and so on, with everybody knowing their responsibilities, the disaster would have been minimised. We should put one in place now. My amendments would ensure that that occurs.
I hope that my amendments will solve two other areas of concern, one of which is the problem of overlapping bodies and the lack of co-ordination. As I have mentioned, many organisations are involved and it is very important that they all liaise properly. The other is simple—the state of readiness. It is very easy for readiness to lapse if there has not been an incident for some time or if attention has never been focused on potential problems. I hope that my amendments will ensure that there is a permanent state of preparedness in potential cases of marine pollution.
The solutions in my amendments aim to give the law a clearer responsibility—or allocate clearer responsibility to individuals, and clearer duties, too, and give a practical application to those. I have spoken at some length about new clause 2. I shall now speak briefly about my other amendments.
Amendment No. 5 simply inserts the word "promoting" to strengthen the practical application of the Bill, to make the Secretary of State's duty more active.
Amendment No. 6 deals with the preparation and maintenance of a marine pollution emergency plan, which should be drawn up in consultation with local authorities and shipping companies and would be ready to put into practice as soon as an incident occurred.
Amendment No. 7 deals with the publication of an annual report on marine pollution control. I have not, until now, mentioned the report, but I stress that it is important. It is not just a piece, or pieces, of paper, which is produced every year, to be consigned shortly thereafter to the waste paper basket. It is important that the public and the House should be aware of the continual problem of marine pollution—not just when we debate the issues—and that it is something that regularly happens and remains threatening. By ensuring that a report is produced every year and that all the issues are re-examined, that state of readiness will be kept at the front of people's consciousness.
I do not suggest that there is a severe problem. I do not wish to over-egg the pudding or suggest that there is a particular problem with tankers, because, if one compares the amount of oil that is lost from them, or the amount of pollution that takes place in the marine environment, with the amount that takes place on land—or in the sea as a result of incidents on the land—one sees that it is much smaller. The fact that each incident can be particularly major should not delude people into thinking that there is a vast problem across all our oceans. But, nevertheless, the problem is sufficiently severe for us continually to bear in mind the importance of keeping an eye on the problem.
An annual report would ensure that the following were continually asked. Is intervention early enough? Is there sufficient international co-operation? Some 72 per cent. of oil pollution comes from illegal dumping. What are we doing about that? Is there proper waste accounting? Are we dealing adequately with the problems of bunker oil and garbage? Is there a problem in dealing with foreign ships that are coming into, or near to, our waters? Is there a problem with foreign masters and crew? All those issues are of concern. They are all dealt with in some way by the Bill, but perhaps not entirely adequately; only time will tell. It needs regular review to ensure that.
New clause 2 and the related amendments are designed to tackle those problems as best we can. They are designed to strengthen and sharpen the Bill in practical terms, but not in any way to alter or spoil the good work for which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives is responsible. I hope that the House will give careful consideration to my suggestions and that it will give swift and easy passage to the remaining stages of the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I extend the warm congratulations of a landlubber from Sutton to a seafaring person, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), on

promoting the Bill, but I also support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).
Although my constituency is landlocked, it should not be assumed that people there do not care what is happening to our coastline. In fact, it is quite the opposite because, for every person living on the coast, there are many more living inland who go to the coast as tourists to enjoy the beaches or take yachting and sailing holidays. It is a matter of great concern to us all if marine and birdlife are put at risk.
11 am
I admire the concept expressed in clause 6 that the Secretary of State should take responsibility for the co-ordination of clean-up procedures, but it does not take a great leap of intelligence to realise that it is all very well having the idea, but one then has to work out how to implement it, or the great scheme would hit the rocks before it had got under way. I am, therefore, delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has come up with the solution of an incident control manager.
As there are so many people involved in pollution control, it strikes me as inevitable that there could be clashes, overlaps and omissions, so it is essential that one person has control so that we can say, "The buck stops there". He would know what was happening and where. The spin-offs of such an arrangement would be innumerable. One would be speed of action and another would be the knowledge that there was someone to chase; someone who could ensure that things were going according to plan. The enormous damage that could result from a lack of effective and efficient action is enough to make us realise how important the concept of a control manager is.
I fully support amendment No. 7. It is appropriate that at the end of the year the Secretary of State should present a report to the House and the public at large on exactly how the operations worked, whether they were effective and what lessons could be learnt. It would be complacent and arrogant for anyone to assume that everything necessarily went well. A public examination would be of tremendous benefit.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on promoting the Bill, but I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on having the foresight to try to tighten an essential clause.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on tabling the interesting new clause and associated amendments and giving the House the opportunity to discuss various matters in a little more detail. Although my hon. Friend now represents Beckenham, he used to represent Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and is, therefore, a man steeped in matters maritime to his very core.
I examined the new clause with some interest because it appeared to encapsulate a notion on which I am sure that we all agree—that speed is of the essence when dealing with any maritime pollution incident, great or small. However, I then began to ask one or two questions and perhaps my hon. Friend will wish to intervene to answer them.
New clause 2 states:


The Secretary of State may appoint, and make provision in relation to the functions and powers of, a marine pollution incident control manager in respect of any specific incident or incidents.
The impression is that such an individual would be appointed in respect of a particular incident and would assume his duties only after the incident had occurred. We have to ask, how soon after the incident would it be possible to make such an appointment? If speed is indeed of the essence, could there be enough of a delay to lose the advantage of the manager's co-ordination efforts because he would not be able to arrive on the scene, either physically or metaphysically, on time?

Mr. Merchant: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. I was thinking that the person who might be appointed could be someone connected with the local authority involved, perhaps the authority's own emergency planning officer or the equivalent. That would mean that the person would already have knowledge of the scene or the locality.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which clarifies the position, but I am not sure that it necessarily leads me to give my full support to the new clause. I was going to say that there would appear to be some advantage in having a permanent incident control manager, someone who would be in a position to take responsibility for the management of an incident whenever and wherever it occurred, rather than, as my hon. Friend confirmed, appointing and giving powers to a person who happened conveniently to be in the area simply because of his role in a local authority or the immediate locality. The advantage of having someone fulfil the role who is always technically available would be that he or she would learn from experience and from one incident to another.
Such a person should have administrative expertise and the ability to cope with people. He may have a scientific or engineering background. Indeed, it is almost inevitable that such a person would be the most desirable, but he should nevertheless have administrative capabilities. We are all aware of the circumstances that can arise after an incident—the appalling chaos, fear and uncertainty. In addition, incidents often occur in bad weather when communications are down. It is important to appoint someone with the necessary strength of character and experience and the ability to deal with people as well as the technical aspects of an incident.
Where could such a person be found? Clearly, he could be found within the existing control mechanism. I am, therefore, not sure that there is any advantage in appointing a different person for each incident, because such a person would not have the experience to be gained from dealing with incidents over a long period.
I suggest that we should appoint a person on permanent stand-by, although he would of course have other responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London said that there could be as many as 20 or 30 minor incidents a year of the type that we discussed under the previous new clause. In addition, there is always the possibility of larger incidents that, sadly, occur from time to time, so such a person might be fully occupied, but he would have other duties along the lines suggested in the other amendments to which I shall refer in a moment.
Would the person appointed be based in London, which would have obvious advantages in terms of communications? Would he be based in a large city near the incident? Again, that would make sense from the point of view of

communications. Or would he be expected to set up operations on the coast as near as possible to the incident? That might be advantageous in terms of dealing with the services that were needed immediately, but not necessarily from the point of view of lengthy communications. All those issues are important and I am sure that hon. Members will want to give them some consideration before we accept the new clause.
Amendment No. 6 suggests
the preparation and maintenance of a marine pollution emergency plan in consultation with such shipping and local authority interests as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.
I have considerable sympathy with that amendment, because it seems to fit better with my suggestion that someone should be permanently appointed to the role. An opportunity is thus given to develop expertise and to learn from one incident to another.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that Holland was one of the nations that had already responded to the need to change legislation in this respect. There is an old Dutch phrase of which I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware, although other hon. Members may not know it. The phrase is "ek plan saln maak", which means that it is a good idea always to have a plan of what one intends to do next. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is wise to suggest that we should try to learn from incidents as they occur around the world. We should not learn only from our own experience in the United Kingdom, but from incidents that occur elsewhere. The development of a plan would be extremely sensible.
Amendment No. 7 provides for an annual report to Parliament. I am always a little nervous about such reports. They can become ossified and so routine as to lose their effect. It is, I am delighted to say, the general policy of the Speaker to give hon. Members the opportunity to raise incidents that occur in or near their constituencies which are of severe public concern. That is very important. The use of a private notice question or of an Adjournment debate enables hon. Members to raise such matters when necessary. Equally, it is up to the Opposition to raise such a matter on one of their Supply days if they feel that the issues involved are important and should be discussed. There are many opportunities for hon. Members to raise such matters. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will think about those before he insists that such a report should be debated regularly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has found my contribution helpful—it is intended to be so—and he was kind enough to say that he found my previous intervention helpful. I emphasise that speed is of the essence. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) referred to an incident way back in history, in 1967—the disaster of a large ship whose name I was always taught to pronounce as the Torrey Canyon.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I did pronounce it "Torrey" Canyon.

Mr. Coombs: I heard my hon. Friend pronounce it—he has repeated the pronounciation in a sedentary intervention—as the "Tory" Canyon. This is a piece of media hype designed to suggest that the party that he and I have the honour to represent has a large split. I can assure my hon. Friend that the experts would tell him that the correct


pronunciation is Torrey Canyon. He should always stick to that for fear that he will be picked up and misrepresented, especially by press hounds—if they were here.

Mr. David Harris: As the incident occurred in my constituency, may I confirm everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) has said on the point.

Mr. Coombs: One can ask for no greater expertise than that of the local Member of Parliament. The case is proven or, perhaps I should say that it is game, set and match.
Speed is of the essence in incidents as great as that of the tragic loss of the Torrey Canyon or as relatively small, although still important, as those that we discussed earlier. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will recognise that the advantage of having someone permanently available to move quickly into action, with a well-developed plan itself based on long experience of such matters, has much to recommend it. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend might consider whether withdrawing the motion would be an appropriate way in which to move the Bill forward.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for tabling new clause 2. He has done the House a great service in allowing us to debate these issues. I am not certain that I entirely agree with the new clause as it stands. I shall listen to what my hon. Friend the Minister says before I lend my whole-hearted support to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) may have misheard me. I pronounced the name Torrey Canyon. I remember from my Gordon Highlander days that Torry is a delightful area of council housing in Aberdeen. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone), who was formerly the Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, South, knows Tony well.
The new clause deals with the specific matter of incidents of pollution and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham proposed the appointment of a manager to carry out the functions to which he referred. That manager should be able to respond quickly, at the request of the Secretary of State, to any incident and there should be a named person to take responsibility for getting things done. I referred earlier to the necessity for speedy command and control in responding to incidents. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has made a number of important points, I think that some of the matters to which he referred are already being dealt with.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham that the idea of having an annual report, as proposed in amendment No. 7, is good. I am pleased that the Secretary of State will continue to have responsibility for co-ordinating measures to prevent, reduce and minimise the effects of marine pollution. Those are general and far-reaching powers which already exist. That point goes to the heart of my concern about the new clause. General powers also exist with respect to submarine piping and offshore installations, as well as to pollution from ships. The new clause would give statutory basis, for the first

time, to the Department of Transport marine pollution control unit. However, I am not sure that it is necessary for new clause 2 to be added to the Bill.
I am pleased that clause 5 implements the 1992 protocols to the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage 1971. The clause will raise the amount of compensation that can be paid under the international oil pollution compensation fund for a single incident from £55 million to £125 million. I do not believe that such compensation will be retrospective, so the provision will not affect Braer claims, although those claims are unlikely to rise above the £55 million ceiling.
The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a marine pollution incident control manager. The manager should be able to take, promote or co-ordinate measures to
reduce and minimise the effects of a specified incident".
If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham correctly, the manager could ask the Secretary of State to give directions to local authorities or the owner of any ship as he thought fit. Authorities or owners would have to comply with such directions.
Amendment No. 6 provides for
the preparation and maintenance of a marine pollution emergency plan in consultation with
shipping interests, local authority interests and others that I have mentioned. I have already referred to the annual report.
Essentially, clause 6 reiterates the powers that the Secretary of State already possesses. That goes to the heart of why I am uncertain whether new clause 2 should be added to the Bill. Sections 12 to 16 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 empower the Secretary of State for Transport to deal with oil and chemical pollution in United Kingdom waters and to intervene if a ship threatens to cause significant pollution.
The powers include sinking or destroying a ship. However, the powers apply solely to United Kingdom waters. In practice, clean-up operations are already directed and controlled by the marine pollution control unit to which I have already referred. That unit is part of the Department of Transport and was set up, with great foresight, way back in 1979.
Although I await the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister, it seems that the Government are likely to believe that the new clause is unnecessary as there would be a duplication of function in relation to work that is already undertaken by the MPCU. The MPCU has special responsibility for oil spills and is dispatched to an incident to co-ordinate and direct operations.
I am aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who referred to these matters. However, in relation to the Braer incident, the MPCU's chief scientific officer flew with a colleague very quickly to the location where pollution was occurring. I pay tribute to that swift action, which underlines the fact that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham are already being addressed satisfactorily.
The MPCU has a national contingency plan. While it is vital that we should monitor constantly how that plan is working and make changes where appropriate, the


Department of Transport and the MPCU already have such a plan which, as I have said, was set up with great foresight some years ago.
The MPCU and the contingency plan were set up to operate as part of the coastguard service and have remote sensing facilities to detect spills. The MPCU owns eight aircraft and has a stockpile of dispersants, cargo transfer equipment, vessels, breathing apparatus, suits and so on. Half that stockpile is intended to deal specifically with oil spills and pollution. The other half is for chemicals. The equipment is operated and maintained by a private sector contractor. The unit also has ships' engineers and seamen. Therefore, there is already a firm foundation within the Department and the unit to deal with such difficulties.
I have been unable to trace any published views on the need for a marine pollution incident control manager. Perhaps that is because the new clause is very recent. Greenpeace has told me that it does not believe that such a manager would make a great deal of difference, because what really matters is prevention rather than cure.
Greenpeace has also repeatedly called for a mandatory ban on vessels entering specific areas of coastal waters around the Minches and the Fair Isles similar to the decision taken by the Italian Government to institute a mandatory ban on tankers entering certain sensitive areas in Italian waters. The Government have the power to impose such a ban now, but I am not entirely certain that it would be right to go down that particular route. Nor have I been able to find any responses to the Bill in general other than the reports from Lloyd's List and the press releases from the Department of Transport.
The matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham are important and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to debate them this morning. I will listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies to the debate because I am far from convinced that it would be right and proper, in view of what I have said and the firm foundation on which we are already building, to incorporate new clause 2 in the Bill at this stage.

Ms Walley: I will be brief as I realise that time is pressing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham on moving the new clause and I am grateful to him in two respects. First, as we are debating the new clause and amendments to clause 6, I now have an opportunity to place on the record—as I will be in order now—something that I was unable to do earlier. Precisely because of the problems experienced by the charitable organisations in working closely with the marine pollution control unit, those organisations have been very keen to amend the Bill so that, where necessary, there could be a quick response in relation to their expertise whenever a disaster strikes.
I intend to give the Minister a copy of the briefing that I have received from Care for the Wild. I hope that he will consider it seriously, as he has already indicated that he will, and take on board issues that relate to the effectiveness of the operation of the MPCU. I await the Minister's considered opinion in due course to that briefing.
Secondly, I believe that we have had a piecemeal and fragmented response to shipping. We genuinely need a co-ordinated approach to everything connected with safer shipping, including crew competence, prevention of pollution, improved facilities in ports and extra or additional facilities for state control of ports. We must consider the work of the MPCU in that wider context.
I want to share with the House the feelings that I experienced when I went up to Shetland immediately after the Braer disaster. Everyone who went up there will have a powerful image of a long line of Dakotas at the airport in Shetland in the most horrendous stormy weather. People flying into that airport would have flown over the wreck of the Braer. There were huge gales and it was impossible for the Dakotas to fly and spray down their dispersants.
That issue became a matter of great contention because of the concerns of environmental groups, especially those in Norway, about the advisability of using dispersants had the Dakotas been able to fly. Those groups were concerned about the type of dispersants. They were also unsure whether the dispersants were required to deal with the oil spill.
The lesson that we must learn from the Braer disaster is that we must have a co-ordinated response. Whoever carries out work on behalf of the Government, in whatever executive agency or in the marine pollution control unit, must have a co-ordinated approach, at the heart of which must be concern about environmental protection. It is no good having a strategy to deal with pollution if that approach causes more pollution in the long term.
The amendments give us an opportunity to consider the way in which the MPCU works and how that organisation should be at the heart of policy in relation to transport and environmental protection. I believe that we have a long way to go in that respect.
The amendments to clause 6, which raise questions about the role of the MPCU and whether someone should be appointed permanently or simply to suit the immediate needs of a particular disaster, and whether there should be an annual report in relation to pollution, would help the House to have a better understanding of what needs to be done to enhance further environmental protection. I suspect that, for reasons best known to himself, the Minister will say that he does not feel able to accept them.
Earlier, we were told that speed is of the essence. If that is so, why have we had to wait so long for Lord Donaldson's inquiry into Shetland? Whatever the reasons for the delay, I now understand that the report will be published in May this year. If the House is concerned about the issue of oil spillages and preventing them from happening—Greenpeace rightly says that that is absolutely crucial—let us have a commitment from the Minister that, whatever are Lord Donaldson's short-term, medium-term or long-term recommendations, the matter will not come back as a piecemeal or fragmented Bill but as a co-ordinated approach to British shipping, international shipping and doing what we can to prevent further pollution.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) because she has been a great help in concentrating attention on the whole issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) in moving the new clause.
The hon. Lady chided the Government for approaching the matter in a piecemeal way. Indeed, she has voiced that criticism on a number of occasions, including in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I have sympathy with what she says. However, it is almost inevitable that there will be something of a piecemeal


approach because these matters are not solely within the control and command of the House, or, indeed, the Government.
Shipping is an international business and, therefore, many of the decisions that are taken, and many of the legislative proposals, must have their roots in international conventions. We all know that the International Maritime Organisation spends a considerable amount of time considering the issues. It must inevitably do so over a long period, for the sole reason that, in order to make the decisions and proposals work on an international basis, it must get agreement. The whole purpose of many parts of my Bill is to implement such international agreements. Despite the hon. Lady's criticisms, it is to some extent inevitable that such matters are dealt with stage by stage.
The hon. Lady mentioned Lord Donaldson's report on the Braer disaster. When disasters come about, we learn lessons from them and respond accordingly. We all look forward to Lord Donaldson's report in May. As one who gave evidence to the Committee, I do not think that Lord Donaldson can be criticised for his thorough approach to a complicated set of circumstances. If he had produced a rushed report, the hon. Lady would have been justifieid in being the first to criticise him for doing so. We wait with interest to read what Lord Donaldson says in his report which, the hon. Lady said is likely to be published in May; I also understand that to be the case. Inevitably, further measures will need to be considered by the IMO and subsequently by the House. I am afraid that, despite the hon. Lady's plea, there will be a piecemeal element in the whole matter.
Let me return to the new clause and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on that matter. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham examines the Bill, he will note that a number of the clauses specifically address his points. He referred to the Penlee disaster, which of course occurred in my constituency, and rightly drew attention to the suggestion made at the time that there was an element of delay in reaching the salvage terms. The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the international convention on salvage, so that issue is addressed.
Similarly, the main purpose of other parts of the Bill is to implement in the United Kingdom the international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation. Once again, precisely those issues are dealt with in my hon. Friend's proposals. I suggest, therefore, that there would be a certain amount of duplication if the House were minded to adopt the new clause and the amendments.
The Minister will undoubtedly speak at some length about the role of the marine pollution control unit and the lead that that organisation specifically takes both in drawing up plans for dealing with potential disasters and in acting as the executive agency of the Secretary of State. Having listened with great care to the points made by my hon. Friend-I am grateful to him for enabling us to debate the issue—it is my view that these important issues are addressed by either existing arrangements or, indeed, provisions in my Bill.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for tabling the

new clause. I suspect that he gets his marine knowledge not so much from his previous experience as the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central but more from being the direct neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) who, as we all know, is probably the only hon. Member in the House who can make a speech unaided by a detailed brief. It may even explain the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As there is more self-congratulation going around the House this morning than at the average meeting of the old Soviet Communist party, we might impose a self-denying ordinance on future congratulations to each other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If my hon. Friends insist, I shall continue to congratulate them all.
Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has raised an important issue. One or two of his points are worthy of some exploration, although I hope that I can persuade him that the amendments are generally already anticipated—or the thrust of them is already anticipated—in the Bill.
I shall deal first with the new clause, which effectively duplicates the duties and responsibilities, as one or two of my hon. Friends said, that were assigned to the dedicated unit that was set up in 1978 to exercise the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Transport for these matters. Just to be clear, the unit is the marine pollution control unit, which is part of the Coastguard Agency, which is in turn an executive agency of the Department of Transport. Incidentally, that answers the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who referred to the need to respond quickly to such incidents. My hon. Friend can be assured that the speed of response is such that the MCPU is ready to deal on an hourly basis, rather than a daily basis, with the sort of emergencies that occur.
The MPCU has specific responsibilities for planning contingency arrangements, ensuring that they are properly planned and taking charge of operations to do with pollution at sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned the equipment that the unit has at its disposal: aerial dispersant spraying resources, remote sensing surveillance aircraft, sea-borne dispersant spraying resources, stocks of the relevant chemicals, mechanical recovery resources, cargo transfer resources, and so on. In a major spill, the MPCU is responsible both for directing at-sea operations and for co-ordinating the shoreline response.
The MPCU already has a marine pollution incident control manager in the sense that the control and direction of the response to an incident is under the overall control of the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency. In his absence, the responsibility falls to the director of the MPCU. Therefore, the new clause is unnecessary. The MPCU already has responsibility for directing operations in an incident and has powers of direction which apply to ship owners, masters and salvors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham mentioned the role of local authorities. The power to direct local authorities would, I am advised, go further than is considered necessary. I am happy to place on record the fact that the arrangements with local authorities generally are felt to work extremely well. My hon. Friend was entirely right to make the point that the local authority is often the key, and perhaps that is not appreciated enough. That means that local authorities themselves must do a


great deal of planning. The general feeling is that the incentive for that would perhaps be thought to come from the Department or from the marine pollution control unit. There is no such demand and they are quite satisfied that the present arrangements work well.
I will comment briefly on the other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 5 adds promotion to the concept. There would no point in the Secretary of State's having the functions that he has if they were not automatically promoted as such using existing procedures. Local authority training already provides a ready platform for promotion, and an important part of the MPCU's function is to prepare for marine spills by making contingency plans to deal with oil pollution. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that that is covered by the wording of the existing clause. I understand that these are probing amendments because that has been the nature of the debate; I merely wish to assure my hon. Friend that I do not think that they are a necessary addition to the spirit of the Bill.
Similarly, with regard to amendment No. 6, I do not think that I have heard it mentioned specifically, but it may be clear that the MPCU is already responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the national contingency plan, which was developed by the Government in consultation with all the necessary interested parties, including shipping and local authority interests.
The MPCU sets out the arrangements for dealing with pollution arising from spillages of oil and other hazardous substances from ships into the marine environment. I could outline to the House at length the fundamentals of the plan, but, quite frankly, I do not intend to do so in view of the time. I simply say to my hon. Friend that, as he would expect, it comprehensively deals with all the issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said that one must be prepared to anticipate, but when one is dealing with disasters what is likely to happen is not easy to anticipate. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).
Lastly, I will refer to the publication of the annual report. With the establishment of the Coastguard Agency, which incorporates the MPCU and the coastguard, we move on from the past arrangements whereby the MPCU's activities, including key performance indicators, targets and results were published in the annual report of the now-defunct marine emergencies organisation.
Within the Coastguard Agency, we will now publish a business plan, a framework document, a corporate plan and a charter standard statement for the agency so that, in effect, the work of the MPCU is under the spotlight as it has never been before. There will be a more comprehensive look at the work of the unit than was available under the old arrangements. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no need for a separate annual report.
As any fair and objective observer would agree, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, has been conscientious in pressing many of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) paid a perfectly handsome and deserved tribute to the work that she has done. However, in my view, the hon. Lady missed the target in her reference to Lord Donaldson. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives was right to say that we wanted a thorough report from Lord Donaldson which went wider than merely describing what happened in the incident. Accidents are by definition sui generis—they never recur in exactly the same way.
11.45am
It is important, and the hon. Lady was among those who properly pressed for this, that we looked at some of the ramifications of Braer and some of the issues to which it gave rise in connection with the practice and anticipation of the emergency arrangements. We could then determine whether any future action was required. I merely say—in the interests of time, I will not detain the House—that the timing of the report was, therefore, for Lord Donaldson. The Government applied no pressure to him in terms of bringing forward an early report because to do so would have been massively counter-productive. I was surprised by the hon. Lady's comments.

Ms Walley: rose—

Mr. Norris: I suspect that the hon. Lady may wish to reiterate her earlier point and ask for an assurance that all action will be taken in one Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said that that was a matter for us to consider after we see what arrangements Lord Donaldson comes up with.

Ms Walley: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Norris: Given the urgings from the hon. Lady's gallant hon. Friends who are here massed for the exciting proceedings that are yet to follow, I will of course give way.

Ms Walley: I simply wish to make it clear to House that of course we need a comprehensive inquiry and comprehensive legislation to follow it. I would be the first to agree with that, and I have called for it. The point that I sought to make was that concerns were expressed at the time that the Government should ensure that the inquiry could be as wide as possible, given the important consequences and long-term implications of the Braer disaster. I simply wish to put that straight for the record.

Mr. Norris: In so far as that is a modestly uncontentious statement, I do not have a great deal of difficulty in agreeing with it. I wish to emphasise, because the hon. Lady asked a specific question, that I understand that Lord Donaldson's report will be published in May, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, although I repeat that that is a matter for Lord Donaldson. When he does so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on what he says. Clearly, I cannot anticipate any of the conclusions that my right hon. Friend may reach and I know that the hon. Lady would not expect me to. With that, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham for instigating a useful debate, but I ask him to consider withdrawing the motion.

Mr. Merchant: I will be brief, because I know that the House wishes to consider other business. We have had a thorough debate on the amendments, for which I am grateful. I noted my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about our self-congratulations being similar to those of the old Soviet Communist party. I am also mindful of the rather permanent fate that awaited those who began to slip into dissension, as there were indications that I was possibly becoming a dissenter. I take the point, but I will take the risk of thanking the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for her supportive words.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Southport (Mr. Banks) and I understand the reservations that they expressed. I also felt suitably chided by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister and, in his usual persuasive and knowledgeable way, he dealt with the underlying concern that prompted my amendments and the new clause. I am, therefore, happy to leave matters in his hands and I am sure that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in that spirit ensure that the Bill is rigorously enforced when it passes through the House. I am sure that they will bear in mind the various points that I raised and which gave rise to my amendments. I do not in any way wish to cause the Bill to pass through stormy waters at this stage because, as I said, it is an excellent step forward. I do not want to minimise its effect in any way and, for that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

EXTENSION OF RIGHTS OF FUND BY SUBROGATION

'.—(1) In section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 (Acquisition by International Fund of rights of recipients of payments made by the Fund in cases of oil pollution damage)—

(a) for subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1) In respect of any sum paid by the Fund as compensation for pollution damage the Fund shall acquire by subrogation any rights in respect of the damage which the recipient has (or but for the payment would have) against any other person,"; and

(b) subsection (3) shall be omitted.

(2) The amendments made by subsection (1) above apply in relation to payments made by the Fund after this section comes into force.'—[Ms Walley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Walley: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 8, in schedule 3, page 16, line 41, at end insert—


'1974 c. 43.
Merchant Shipping Act
1974 Section 8(3).'


No. 9, in schedule 3, page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In Schedule 4, paragraph 21(b).'

Ms Walley: I move the new clause with some pleasure and sincerely hope that it is supported by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the Minister responsible for shipping.
This morning, we have heard a lot about many different shipping incidents that resulted in improvements in ship safety and prevented similar disasters. We have heard references to the Torrey Canyon disaster. The Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for St. Ives and is not part of the Government's legislative programme. The new clause and amendments were tabled because of the Braer disaster in the Shetlands. Everyone involved thought that no matter what damage was done and the extent to which

it could be cleared up—we were relieved that so much of it was cleared up—we should learn from the experience and ensure that necessary changes were made at the first opportunity, including ratification of the IMO conventions.
I should like to think that what we are doing here today is the latest in a long line of improvements. I am thinking especially of a disaster that took place 82 years ago today. While I am speaking, Ball Green primary school in my constituency is holding a remembrance service because so many lives were lost when the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York. The fact that those primary school pupils are learning the lessons of that historic disaster makes it even more important for us to learn from history and from what happened in the Braer disaster. For that reason, I am pleased to bring the new clause and amendments to the attention of the House.
The new clause is largely technical and is designed to help the International Oil Pollution Fund to continue to pay compensation quickly to the victims of oil spillages. It removes an inconsistency between the practice of the fund and domestic legislation, by giving the fund the right to recover any compensation that it pays when it is not legally obliged to do so.
It is vital that victims of oil spillages receive compensation as promptly as possible, as it helps to safeguard local communities and jobs from the economic effects of an incident—that is what happened with the communities in the Shetlands. The fund recognises the fact that it is vital and endeavours to minimise delay in the payment of compensation. It does not wait for proof of liability from the shipowner or other parties, which could take months or years. Neither does the fund wait for shipowners or others to pay compensation up to the limit of their liability before it makes payments.
Unfortunately, the fund's commendable policy of paying victims rapidly could, in certain circumstances, give rise to difficulties in recovering the money from liable parties. The new clause would remove that possibility and has arisen as a result of our constructive debate in Committee, when the Government recognised that further improvements could be made to the Bill.
It may be helpful to the House if I explain the legislative background. Compensation for damage caused by oil spills from laden tankers is governed by two international conventions—the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for oil pollution damage.
The 1969 convention governs the liability of tanker owners for such damage. The convention lays down the principle of strict liability for tanker owners and imposes a system of compulsory liability insurance. Shipowners are normally entitled to limit their liability. The extent of the limit is linked to the tonnage of the ship. For example, the limit on the liability of an owner of a 50,000 tonne ship is about £6.3 million. After the entry into force of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 liability convention, the limit will be about £20.8 million.
The 1971 convention provides a regime for compensating victims when the compensation available under the 1969 civil liability convention is inadequate.
There are rare circumstances in which the compensation available from shipowners may not be adequate. They are exempt from liability when the damage results from an act of war or a grave natural disaster, when it is wholly caused


by sabotage perpetrated by a third party or when it is wholly caused by the failure of authorities to maintain navigational aids.
Shipowners may also be unable to meet their financial obligations, although the requirement for compulsory insurance for laden oil tankers should make that unlikely.
The fund is most often called into play when it is clear that the cost of compensation is, or is expected to be, greater than the limit on the shipowner's liability. The precise division of financial responsibility between the fund, the shipowner and any other liable parties may not be clear immediately following an oil spillage. However, victims cannot usually wait for that to be resolved. Compensation for lost income is often needed quickly if further economic hardship is to be avoided. That is the important point and it is why the fund developed the practice of paying compensation before the question of liability had been resolved. That practice was important in compensating salmon farmers in the Shetlands, for example, and we must appreciate its importance.
The wording of the 1971 convention gives the fund the right of subrogation. When the fund compensates victims for oil pollution damage, it obtains the right to reclaim compensation from the shipowner if it is proved that he or she is liable. However, there is some ambiguity about when the right may be exercised. The 1971 convention could be interpreted to mean that the fund can subrogate the rights of claimants only if payment was made after the fund's liability had been established. The new clause makes it clear that the right can be exercised irrespective of when the payment was made.
After the Braer incident, the fund acted very quickly to compensate victims of the resulting pollution. It was under no legal obligation to act so quickly. Fortunately, in that case, it was able to obtain an undertaking from the shipowner, but that may not always be the case.
For that reason, we want to ensure that the safeguards will be available. If we are to ensure that the fund can continue to act in such a way, the ambiguity that I described must be resolved and we now have an opportunity to do so. The new clause will achieve that and reaffirm our commitment to the marine environment and compensation for the victims of oil pollution and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Harris: I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. As she said, she drew our attention to the problem in the Standing Committee and I am glad that she has tabled the new clause to deal with it.
I hope that the House will feel able to adopt the new clause. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Braer disaster and the workings of the fund in regard to that tragedy. I understand that the fund has paid out no less than £26 million to deal with the consequences of that disaster, and I welcome the hon. Lady's brief words on the subject.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for presenting some useful amendments that will, happily, set right an anomaly in the Bill. I agree entirely with her remarks and it is useful that the Bill should be improved in that way. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment made: No. 4, in clause 6, page 4, line 39, leave out 'an' and insert 'any'.

New schedule—Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships—

PART I

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT

1. After section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies (that is to say a ship carrying a cargo of persistent oil in bulk), then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable

(a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom; and
(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where—

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but
(b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable, each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. After section 2 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Exceptions from liability under section 1A.

2A. No liability shall be incurred by the owner of a ship under section lA of this Act by reason of any discharge or escape of oil from the ship, or by reason of any relevant threat of contamination, if he proves that the discharge or escape, or (as the case may be) the threat of contamination

(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon; or
(b)was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner, with intent to do damage; or
(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of a government or other authority in exercising its function of maintaining lights or other navigational aids for the maintenance of which it was responsible."

3. After section 3 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Restriction of liability for oil pollution.

3A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence—

(a) any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship to which section 1A of this Act applies, or
(b) there arises a relevant threat of contamination,

then, whether or not the owner of the ship in question incurs a liability under section 1A of this Act—

(i) he shall not be liable otherwise than under that section for any such damage or cost as is mentioned in it, and
(ii) no person to whom this paragraph applies shall be liable for any such damage or cost unless it resulted from anything done or omitted to be done by him either with intent by him to cause any such damage or cost or recklessly and in the knowledge that any such damage or cost would probably result.

(2) Subsection (1)(ii) of this section applies to—

(a) any servant or agent of the owner of the ship;
(b) any person not falling within paragraph (a) above but employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship or to perform any service for the ship;
(c) any charterer of the ship (however described and including a bareboat charterer), and any manager or operator of the ship;
(d) any person performing salvage operations with the consent of the owner of the ship or on the instructions of a competent public authority;
(e) any person taking any such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (2)(a) of section IA of this Act;
(f) any servant or agent of a person falling within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) above.

(3) The liability of the owner of a ship under section IA of this Act for any impairment of the environment shall be taken to be a liability only in respect of—

(a) any resulting loss of profits, and
(b) the cost of any reasonable measures of reinstatement actually taken or to be taken."

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)—

(a) subsection (1) shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1 A of this Act".

PART II

AMENDMENTS OF THE 1971 ACT AS AMENDED BY THE 1988 ACT

1. After Section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.—(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape; and
(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat of damage caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable—

(a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom; and
(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where—


(a)as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but
(b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others, for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section, but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. In section 2 (exceptions from liability), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or IA".

3. In section 3 (restriction of liability)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "to which section 1 of this Act applies" there shall be substituted the words "(whether one to which section 1 of this Act applies or one to which section 1A of this Act applies)"; and
(ii) after the words "under section 1" there shall be substituted the words "or 1A"; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)—

(a) subsections (1), (1A) and (1B) shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act",

6. In section 20(1) (definitions), in the definition of "ship", after the word "ship" there shall by inserted the words "(subject to section 1A(5))".'.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendments made No. 2, in page 16, line 38, at end insert—

'1971 c. 59.
Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971.
Section 15(1).'

No. 8, in page 16, line 41, at end insert

'1974 c. 43.
Merchant Shipping Act 1974.
Section 8(3).'

No. 3, in page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In Schedule 4, paragraph 12.'

No. 9, in page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In Schedule 4, paragraph 21(b).'

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have a deep vested interest in the Bill and maritime matters. Reference has already been made today to two disasters off my constituency—the Torrey Canyon and the Penlee disaster. Any constituency that has experienced such incidents will realise their impact. Many other disasters have been mentioned during these proceedings—that involving the Braer is uppermost in our minds. I am grateful to Lord Donaldson, who is conducting the inquiry on the Braer environmental tragedy, for taking on the task of sponsoring the Bill in another place, which illustrates the Bill's importance in dealing with maritime issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) chided me earlier, saying that I have not been entirely responsible for the Bill's wording. As my cover has been blown, I readily acknowledge that. In doing so, I extend my thanks to the officials who have put in an enormous amount of time in preparing the Bill. My hon. Friend also said, from his landlocked position, that the Bill was worthy but dull. I leave him to draw his own conclusions about the Bill's nature, but may I say in all modesty that the Bill is of great importance to the coastline of this country, as the accidents and tragedies that I have mentioned reveal.
Although we all know about the Braer, Torrey Canyon and Penlee disasters, many smaller accidents that cause enormous problems to the localities affected may not hit the headlines in the same way. I was struck by the figure that the Minister gave in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). He said that there are some 20 incidents a year when oil from boats affected by new clause 1 causes tremendous environmental damage all around the coastline.
I have an interest in this matter, first, because of the constituency that I have the honour to represent, but, secondly, because I am the president of the Sea Safety Group United Kingdom, which was formed because of the number of accidents involving fishing boats in collision with merchant vessels. The group now has branches all around our coastline and connections with organisations that have sprung up as a result of it in other countries. My involvement with the group and the fishing industry has brought home to me the enormous dangers of all sorts around our coastline and in our waters.
As we have heard, our approach must, to an extent, be piecemeal because the introduction of new technology means that we are dealing with a fast developing scene and we cannot lay down, here and now, a plan that will solve all the problems in the future. We shall return constantly to the theme of sea safety and the dangers of environmental pollution.
If I had to describe the Bill, I would say that it will, we hope, do two things: make our seas safer; and make them cleaner. If it achieves those objectives, albeit in a limited and legalistic way, it will have served this country and other maritime countries. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the International Maritime Organisation? Because shipping is so international and a disaster in one country can affect the coastline of a neighbouring country, the IMO must take the lead in settling a number of those issues. But that does not mean that we can sit back, either as Members of Parliament or as a Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the interest that he has taken

in this matter, but our Government must continue to take a leading role, as they try to do, in the IMO. With great respect to the officials, I hope that Ministers will take a more prominent role in the workings of the IMO. The day-to-day work must be left to the officials, as they are the experts. We have relied on them heavily during the passage of the Bill.
There is, however, a political role, which is where politicians come in. Our task is to focus attention on concerns and problems such as the dangers to seafarers, the improvement that must be made to the standards of manning of vessels, the training of crews, the standards that we expect, particularly of flags of convenience vessels passing through the waters off our coastline, or the effects of environmental disasters and the need to plan for them. Our role is to focus attention on those and demand action from our Government and the IMO.
I thank all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who have taken a keen interest in the Bill. I have been impressed by the interest of the "landlubbers", as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) described them. I am grateful to everyone who has participated in the proceedings. I hope that the Bill will go through the House of Lords speedily and reach the statute book before long. I hope that it will play its part in making our seas safer and cleaner.

Mr. Dykes: A Bill such as this, which has received such massive support and been so ably presented, does not, I imagine—with your permission and approval, Madam Deputy Speaker—need a long Third Reading. Lest I cause you alarm by rising at this stage, let me explain that I do so merely to make a brief intervention to add words of support and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for the Bill that he has introduced and to correct an impression to which I think he referred in a jocular fashion—I take it as such—that I was critical or chiding; far from it; it is quite the reverse.
First, I must quickly mention that when my hon. Friend referred to his specific interest in sea safety, and safety especially along the coastlines of our great island nation, he was following in the illustrious footsteps of many people. I think especially of no less a person than Winston Churchill, when he was Navy Minister after the first world war and attended the Versailles conference with the leaders of the other victorious allied powers, including Clemenceau. As Winston was a supporter of Trinity House, the national association of lifeboatmen, he was wearing the splendid blue uniform with gold buttons of Trinity House. Clemenceau asked him—if I may use a foreign language quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, without incurring your disapprobation—
Qu'est ce que c'est que cette uniformelà?
Winston did not manage very competent French, so he replied in his usual very bad French, also getting the genders wrong:
Je suis la frère de la Trinity.
Clemenceau could not understand the textual nature of that reply, and threw his hands up in admiration and said:
Mon Dieu, quel influence!
Therefore, my hon. Friend is following in a very illustrious tradition of supporting not only Trinity House, but the concept of sea safety around the coast.
That is only one reason, but one of many reasons, why, contrary to his suggestion—we were both speaking the


same English language at the time—that I was critical, far from it. Quite the reverse applies. I was just referring to the galvanic explosion of talent that can occur when a Department felicitously, with all the bright and brainy civil servants, comes together with the brains and talent of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives in deciding that they are working together to bring a Bill forward. That is, with the able assistance of the Minister, the best example of Parliament working in a combined sense to produce a measure that is long overdue.
Therefore, many people will be very glad about the Bill's passage today. I certainly did not say on the record either that the Bill was worthy but dull. That may have been part of a light-hearted banter that is sotto voce on such occasions between friends and is simply the way of reducing the tension of jealousy and admiration that one feels for such an important measure. No other words are necessary from me except to welcome the Third Reading.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: As yet another landlubber here, I have to say that not only is the Bill worthy, but it deals with circumstances that are dramatic. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who modestly said that he had little knowledge of the technical side of the matter, has shown great knowledge and expertise in the technical aspects of the Bill, possibly because, with the exception of the aptly-named skeleton coast of west Africa, his constituency has probably seen more wrecks than anywhere else in the world.
One of the best ways of preventing pollution of our coastline is to ensure that an accident does not happen and, if an accident is imminent, that a salvage operation can prevent pollution. The focus this morning has been, rightly, on the anti-pollution aspects of the Bill, but I shall focus briefly on clause 1, which introduces a complete new code of the law of salvage, which is to be widely welcomed.
The fundamental principle of salvage is "No cure, no pay." That provides remuneration on the basis of performance, but its great weakness has been that without any pay there is no cure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) pointed out earlier, it was the Amoco Cadiz which highlighted the weaknesses of present salvage law in that, first, one had to have an agreement to carry out an act of salvage and, in the absence of an agreement, there was no incentive to prevent pollution. The Bill remedies both situations.
In the case of the Amoco Cadiz, the ship was drifting on to the rocks and the master hesitated, to the cost of us all. There have been many attempts at reform of salvage law after the Amoco Cadiz. In 1980, Britain led the way and got the argument going. Britain was able to lead the way in the reform of salvage law because it is rightly recognised as the world centre for the resolution of commercial and marine disputes. By the by, the services provided by the City in that respect are a useful contribution to our balance of payments.
The resolving of salvage disputes focused, as early as the 19th century, around Lloyd's form, which won worldwide recognition and sets out the relationship between the salvor and the distressed property. However, it was not until after the Amoco Cadiz incident in 1980 that we broke the fundamental rule of "no cure, no pay" when the Lloyd's form, which is the commonly accepted way of resolving a salvage dispute, introduced the concept

whereby the salvor of a laden tanker, even if there was no cure, would be given his expenses back in his effort to prevent pollution plus 15 per cent. If that had been in place in 1978, it probably would have provided the incentive to the salvors to save the Amoco Cadiz.
As usual, the world lagged behind Britain and it was not until 1989 that the IMO introduced the international convention on salvage, which, in effect, codifies the existing law of salvage, but with two important extra features. Those were examined in detail in Committee. Articles 13 and 14 provide that in the event that there is no satisfactory prevention of an accident, the skill and expertise of the salvor in trying to prevent pollution will be remunerated and, in the event that there is no cure, the feature that was in the original Lloyd's form of 1980 of expenses plus a percentage has now been enshrined into law, except that it is expenses plus 100 per cent.
The important feature, which I am sure will be welcomed by the Department of Transport and especially by the Minister who has taken the Bill through on behalf of the Government, with some skill and knowledge himself, is that that imposes no extra cost on the Government in rewarding salvors because the shipowners' own P and I insurance clubs—protection and indemnity—have undertaken to pay that extra expense, which is a classic example of the way in which the private sector can come up with creative solutions where the whole nation is affected.
There has been, among Admiralty lawyers, a fair amount of concern about the interaction between articles 13 and 14. There is an element of ambiguity which is probably due to the different diplomatic arguments put forward during the drafting of the convention in the International Maritime Organisation. However, my friends in the City tell me that there have been 15 cases since that concept was introduced in the Lloyd's form in 1990, none of which has caused any great problems, so that ambiguity will probably cause no difficulties.
I have, however, one fundamental complaint about the wording of the convention. One of the proudest slogans in marine law and marine history is "No cure, no pay", and this law downgrades "No cure, no pay" to the expression "a useful result", which sounds to me the sort of thing that a football manager would say on a wet Saturday afternoon after his team had lurched into a draw.
Having expressed that complaint, I know that it is a convention and that the Bill has been welcomed by everyone in the City who is concerned with the marine sector—bankers, engineers, surveyors and, last but not least, lawyers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on introducing it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but can you help me? You will be aware that there were points of order earlier this morning in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that, as a result of Madam Speaker's intervention, my hon. Friend is now being provided with refreshment by British Coal. We are grateful to Madam Speaker for ensuring that that happened.
I have just spoken to my hon. Friend's secretary, Mrs. Jean Fitzgerald, and have had a message faxed through to me. Mrs. Fitzgerald has been trying to speak to my hon. Friend on the telephone—you, Madam Deputy Speaker,


will know that there are telephones linked to the bottom of the pit—so that the hon. Lady can carry out her parliamentary duties in relation to constituency matters. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that even prisoners are allowed to see Members of Parliament so that they can deal with constituency matters. I should like a ruling on this. Surely it is not permissible for a publicly owned industry to frustrate a Member of Parliament in the exercise of his or her constitutional duties.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker dealt with the matter exhaustively at the beginning of the sitting and said that the hon. Lady had gone down the pit of her own volition. I do not think that anything can be added to that now.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the former Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Broadgreen, Terry Fields, was in Walton prison, he was able to make telephone calls and receive delegations of Members of Parliament to discuss parliamentary business in private. Is British Coal taking on itself powers of imprisonment over people and denying access to parliamentary colleagues?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot deal further with the matter. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the points made by Madam Speaker earlier today. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Harris: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the solution simple? Cannot the hon. Lady come up to the surface and take the phone calls herself?

Mr. Sedgemore: She is trying to save jobs—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take no further points of order on the subject.

Ms Walley: As a preface to my brief remarks on Third Reading I should say that I was recently involved with a group of women who went down Trentham colliery. They were concerned to try to stop the Government closing the coal mines—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill, to which the hon. Lady should refer.

Ms Walley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to follow your instructions and ensure that I am in order, so I shall return to the Bill.
I add my congratulations to the work of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book quickly. The Bill still contains some slight imperfections and I hope that, before it completes its passage through the House, we can make even more improvements to it with respect to the speedy response to disasters provided by charitable organisations—a subject which we have spent much time considering.
I also wish to mention briefly the subject of salvage tugs. I can see that the hon. Member for St. Ives nods his head. It is important that, having gone to so much trouble, salvage tugs should be available as and when needed. They must be able to make a quick response to prevent further pollution, as the Bill seeks to do.
Conservative Members, who may not have coastal constituencies—they refer to themselves as landlubbers

—have said how important it is that the subject should be appreciated and understood by everybody. I endorse that view, but we must put it in a wider context and be aware of the wider issues relating to British and international shipping.
Many of the incidents that have arisen around our coasts have not arisen because British-flagged ships have been involved in disasters. British shipping has one of the best records of any country. But there has been a huge increase in the number of ships flagging out to flags of convenience which do not have the same safety provisions, whose crews are not as competent and which do not meet the same safety standards. They are meant to meet the same safety standards, but there are various question marks over whether, through port state control inspections, we can ensure that those ships are going about their business off United Kingdom shores in a proper way.
There is a huge agenda that the Government could adopt in relation to their work in the European Union and the International Maritime Organisation. The fact that ships are flagged out contributes, more than anything else, to the pollution that the Bill seeks to reduce.

Mr. Ottaway: I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying. I, too, should like many vessels to return from flags of convenience to British flags. Does the hon. Lady support the proposal of the British open register, which would probably quadruple the size of the British fleet and bring many vessels under flags of convenience within the scope of the health and safety regulations to which she referred?

Ms Walley: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to that question. The hon. Member has raised an issue which, more than anything else, disturbs people who are involved in British shipping. There is a difference of opinion on the subject. The Opposition have tabled an early-day motion clearly setting out their view on the proposals that, I understand, have come from the Baltic Exchange and have some support from the Department of Trade and Industry. I am not clear how much support they have from the Department of Transport. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification when he replies to the debate.
We need to have a strong British merchant fleet, with minimum safeguards in respect of crewing, design and every other aspect of the ship's operation. There has been a huge decrease in the amount of tonnage currently under the British flag. Why? It is because our Government, unlike other Governments, are not prepared to give the support to British shipping that other Governments give to theirs. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggested that the way to solve the problem is to go ahead with the proposal for the British open register. The maritime group of Members debated that at great length only a fortnight ago. I think that the hon. Gentleman was present. All those connected with British shipping held the strong view that to do away with the British merchant fleet and the red ensign, and introduce a flag of convenience for British merchant shipping, would undermine our international role.
We must take account of what has happened to British shipping and the Government's refusal to support our shipping in the same way as other Governments have supported theirs. But the open register proposal is not the answer. Those who proposed the British open register as a solution to the problems that we face in relation to our


merchant fleet were people who accept that the British merchant fleet has already had its day. The only thing that they are worried about is what will happen to the City of London and to ensure that it does not face further difficulties.

Mr. Ottaway: I cannot allow the hon. Lady to get away with such gross misrepresentation. She has reached an inaccurate conclusion based on false assumptions. The parliamentary maritime group was packed out with members of the trade union movement and was totally unrepresentative of British shipping.

Ms Walley: The trade union movement has done as much as anybody to fight for the British merchant fleet. It has united with the British Chamber of Shipping for the past three years in calling on the Government to take some action through the Finance Bill. I might be ruled out of order for saying to Conservative Members who support the Bill and who have coastal or land-locked constituencies or represent constituencies such as mine, that if they are concerned about British shipping they should, in addition to supporting the Bill, support the amendment that will be tabled to the Finance Bill next week. That would enable their constituents to measure the extent of their support for British shipping.
I shall return to the debate on Third Reading before I am interrupted by Conservative Members. As I have briefly sought to explain, ships that fly flags of convenience cause all sorts of difficulties for marine safety. About 6,500 foreign ships visited British ports in 1992. About 30 per cent. of those vessels were checked by Government surveyors and defects were found on 70 per cent. of them. The number of ships that had to be detained in British ports because their defects were so serious has quadrupled in the past five years.
Checks in European ports have shown that the number of ships with defects threatening their seaworthiness rose by 12 per cent. in 1992. Nearly 10 per cent. of all oil tankers inspected in 1992 had to be detained in European ports because of defects threatening their seaworthiness. In 1988, port state control inspectors found that 81 per cent. of major faults uncovered in routine safety inspections were on ships flying flags of convenience.
When all that is added to chronic oil pollution and the fact that ships are still discharging illegally, it underlines the importance of doing all that we can to improve every aspect of ship design, crewing and safety. The Bill, which will put on our statute book important international conventions, must be passed at the earliest opportunity. I look forward to that.

Mr. Norris: It is sad that the last contribution by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was irrelevant. I cannot follow her down the general tour d'horizon. I say that to get my French on the record along

with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) whose effort was magnifique, mais ce n'etait pas la guerre.
The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. Her lunatic propositions are advanced exclusively by Labour party members. They say that we need a great and vibrant British merchant fleet and should encourage many ships to register in Britain, but they also say that, to protect their trade union interests, the conditions imposed on those vessels should be the most onerous in the world. It is about time the hon. Lady woke up, came down from Stoke-on-Trent and looked more closely at the reality of the world. If she did, that she might understand some of what all this is about. I am disappointed by the silliness of the hon. Lady's contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that it was inaccurate and misleading. He was being generous. The Bill is about salvage and pollution.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: No. We have had a long debate. The hon. Gentleman is here to talk about Antarctica and he and other hon. Members should shortly have an opportunity to do that.
Until the rather silly final speech by the hon. Lady, who co-operated in presenting the Bill, we were having a sensible debate. The progress that has been made since the Torrey Canyon, Amoco Cadiz, the Braer and other incidents in controlling and coming to terms with the new world of salvage and pollution has been impressive. The role of the International Maritime Organisation has been useful and constructive. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made that clear in his closing remarks which I thoroughly endorse. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are fully involved in the work of the IMO and are honoured to host its headquarters which are across the river on the Albert embankment.
I am grateful for the spirit in which the Bill has been considered by all hon. Members and, as has been said often in the debate, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives for piloting—to use an appropriate maritime expression—the Bill so far.
I am not the slightest bit grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, although it was characteristically witty and illuminating. The last thing that the Bill can be called is dull. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South pertinently observed that although the proceedings may not have been lively, the issues are such that when the next incident sadly occurs, it will occupy many more front pages than subjects that we routinely debate with a great deal more passion. This has been a thoroughly good morning's work and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and to other hon. Members who have participated. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Antarctic Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surprised that today has been chosen for the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading because the Kyoto conference is still considering many items relating to relevant Government policy.
I had mistakenly assumed that the Report stage would be timed to allow the appropriate Minister to report on the British delegation's participation in the Kyoto conference and its outcome. In Committee, it was indicated that would be the case. The Report stage is today rather than on the date originally mooted, of 29 April. I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to know whether a Minister will make a statement on the Kyoto conference at a later stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The naming of the date for the Report stage rests entirely with the right hon. Member whose Bill it is.

Clause 14

PERMITS: APPLICATIONS, PRODUCTION, REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION

Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 14, at end insert
`(including provision in accordance with which such procedure is to be determined)'.
Rather than raise another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may respond to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I apologise if he was misled, but I do not believe that it was my fault. It was always in my mind that this was the possible day for dealing with the remaining stages of the Bill.
I do not recall saying anything on Second Reading or in Committee to indicate that this business might be dealt with on a different date. It seemed to me important that the Bill, which has universal support across the House, should make headway as soon as possible—particularly so that their Lordships might have an opportunity to debate it at length.

Mr. Corbyn: My complaint was not against the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that a statement will be made on the outcome of the Kyoto conference. It is obviously extremely important both to have legislation on the statute book that meets the needs of the Madrid agreement and that the House be kept informed. I hoped that the Bill's remaining stages would be dealt with later so that we could—if this is not an unfortunate analogy—kill two birds with one stone and hear a statement from the Minister at the same time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed comments on that matter to continue long enough. Perhaps we may now make progress with amendment No. 1.

Mr. Jopling: Clause 14(1)(e) empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing a right of appeal
against the revocation or suspension of permits, and as to the procedure to be followed in relation to such appeals.
This technical amendment strengthens the Bill.
As the clause is presently drafted, there may be doubt about whether the regulations could provide for the appeal body to determine its procedure. The amendment makes it clear that the regulations which, if the Bill is agreed, will be laid could provide how the appeal procedure is to be determined—for instance, by the appeal body.

Mr. Corbyn: I rise on amendment No. 1, although my starred amendment about the permit system has not been called. While I understand the technical nature of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it does underline the importance of an appeal system and a procedure that allows a number of things to happen.
As I understand it, the amendment essentially lays down the ground work under which regulations would be published to enable an appeal system to take place. It seems to me that the basis must, first, be the need for open and public scrutiny of applications, publications, approvals, refusals or appeals that might be made of permits for scientific exploration or, indeed, expeditions within the Antarctic, and also the method by which an appeal might be made.
Concern was expressed a number of times in Committee, and has been since, about the delegation of powers to the British Antarctic Survey, which are implicit in some of the permits that might well be applied for for certain work. It surely cannot be right that a particular organisation, albeit publicly owned, funded and run, such as the British Antarctic Survey, should have a right to grant itself appeals for work it does.
The whole principle has to be openness. Indeed, the expeditions undertaken by Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others, to examine what is going on in the Antarctic, have been helpful in demonstrating the way in which a number of countries have simply not lived up to their obligations under the Antarctic treaty system, have spoilt the environment and done enormous damage there.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the House found it possible to include something that recognised his argument, that would be an inspiration to the other countries involved in the treaty and the protocol, and would be seen perhaps as best practice?

Mr. Corbyn: Indeed. That would be extremely helpful, and a very good step forward. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We want to ensure that the Antarctic remains a zone of peace, a place of scientific exploration, and that there is regulation and a regime there to prevent illegal mining activities and prevent people from spoiling the environment. That is why there is widespread support for the concept of a permit system. But once one grants powers to somebody to give permits to other people, obviously one has also granted powers to people to refuse permits for certain people.
I am concerned that, on occasions, a Government might decide that they do not want people to look at what they are doing down there, and refuse permits to particular organisations. They might decide, for example, that Greenpeace should not be granted a permit to examine what is going on in the Antarctic. I very much hope that that would not be the case, as it is an extremely responsible organisation, but it is essential that there be an openness in an appeals system and a publication.
That is why much of the debate in Committee was about an amendment that I tabled asking for publication in The


London Gazette of applications for permits. I have never read it, but I understand that that is the way of getting things published. Unfortunately, that was not agreed by the Government or the right hon. Gentleman who is the promoter of the Bill.
My other point is about the role of the British Antarctic Survey is this. I hope that any regulations proposed under clause 14 will ensure that any permits that the British Antarctic Survey is allowed to grant itself for its exploration or research activity will be open, published and public so that it is clear what it is doing. It is a dangerous practice in law to grant delegated powers to any organisation, because we already have an arm's-length approach. It would seem to be more like a mile and a half arm's-length approach if we allowed that to happen.
I hope that, when drawing up the regulations, the Minister will recognise the legitimate concerns that were expressed in Committee, and which I understand were also expressed by a number of groups, especially non-governmental organisations, at the Kyoto conference, and by interested environmental groups in this country. I hope that the Minister will recognise the role that such groups have to play and the necessity of involving them in discussion and close examination of the permit system.
If the BAS is allowed to grant itself permits for lesser activities, those activities may increase in size. That could lead to a situation in which a permit has been granted for one thing, but, because the exploration work is already under way, it is assumed that it can take place under a Government permit because the BAS has granted one to itself. It seems that it could be a Trojan horse.
I should much prefer all permits to be dealt with openly by the Secretary of State, with publication and a clear right of appeal for all those who have been refused a permit for whatever reason. The Secretary of State should also publish the reasons for any refusal.

Mr. Jopling: The House has listened with interest to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). As he said, many of the points that he made were made in Committee. With respect, I think that he will agree that many of them are rather wide of the amendment. I remind him that we are debating an amendment to clause 14(1)(e), which relates to regulations that might be laid to deal with appeals against the revocation or suspension of permits.
It is not envisaged that the appeal body will need to be more than a relatively dormant institution, to be brought to life on an ad hoc basis when and if it should be needed. Most permits are likely to be issued on an ad hoc or seasonal basis and the likelihood of their being revoked or suspended, except of course in the case of an emergency, is therefore relatively small.
Although it will be important for the regulations to specify the basic appeal procedure if people are aggrieved because their permits have been revoked, it is also desirable that the appeal body should be able to devise its own detailed procedures. That is allowed for in the regulations that will be laid in this instance. I hope that, in view of that explanation, the House will accept this technical amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Report, not in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 19, after 'Protocol' insert
'and to any measures for the implementation of the Protocol that have become effective by virtue of paragraph 4 of Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty'.
The House will recall that, in Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) tabled an amendment to clause 15 which would have required the Secretary of State to have regard to any guidelines or criteria that might be developed under the protocol. The problem with that amendment was that the Secretary of State would have been required to have regard to guidelines or criteria which might not have been accepted by the United Kingdom or by other parties to the protocol.
The Secretary of State should be required to have regard only to those instruments that have equivalent legal status to the protocol, by which I mean that they are binding on all parties to the protocol. A close examination of the protocol and its annexes reveals that the only such instruments are measures that have become effective by virtue of paragraph 4 of article IX of the Antarctic treaty.
The House will remember that article 10(1)(b) of the protocol contains a general provision for such measures to be adopted for the implementation of the protocol. Article 6 of annexe V of the protocol provides also for management plans for Antarctic specially protected and managed areas to be approved by such measures. The measures become effective only—this is the key point—when, in accordance with paragraph 4 of article IX of the Antarctic treaty, they have been approved by all the Antarctic treaty consultative parties, all of whom will have to become parties to the protocol, as we have already discussed, before it enters into force.
The amendment reflects that situation. The Secretary of State would have to have regard to any measures adopted for the implementation of the protocol that have become effective. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, North, who helpfully tabled an amendment in Committee allowing us to discuss the matter and to think about it again, will feel that we have gone some way to meeting his point and clarifying the position.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand the point. I tabled an amendment in Committee on the matter, and I would have been happier if it had been accepted then, although I understand that we are making progress on the point. Paragraph 4 of article IX of the 1959 Antarctic treaty says:
The measure referred to in this article shall become effective when approved by all the contracting parties whose representatives are entitled to participate at the meetings held to consider these matters.
Article I refers to a meeting to be held in Canberra, Australia, within two months of December 1959, when the treaty was finally agreed. There were regular meetings thereafter. The treaty makes a number of points about the Antarctic being a peaceful place, about scientific research, about co-operation on research, about inspection, about jurisdiction in Antarctica and about the preservation and conservation of living resources. The amendment would ensure that paragraph 4 was carried out.
I do not follow the point made by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) when he said that measures that were not agreed to by the British Government would not be carried out, and that only those that were the subject of consensus would be carried out.
I thought that the whole treaty was based on consensus and that it therefore would not be possible for a protocol to be published in accordance with the treaty which did not have the consent of all the treaty partners. The question whether the British Government agreed with it all would be irrelevant, because clearly they must have agreed to it or it could not have become a protocol within the terms of the 1959 treaty.

Mr. Jopling: I hope that I can help the hon. Member by saying again that the measures become effective only when, in accordance with paragraph 4, they have been approved by all the Antarctic treaty consultative parties. Those are the same 26 parties, as I tried to explain, who all have to agree to the protocol before it becomes effective. I hope that they will all do so this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reason why we are debating the Bill now is to allow Britain to ratify the protocol during 1994.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that point. I hope that we shall ratify the protocol during 1994, and that the whole thing will be brought into operation. I shall return to that point on Third Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

PENALTIES

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 20, leave out first 'a fine' and insert
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both,'.
The House will recall that the hon. Member for Islington, North moved an amendment in Committee that would technically have provided for a term of imprisonment for an unlimited duration. However, he withdrew his amendment on my assurance that we would reconsider the matter of penalties. Several hon. Members in Committee supported the idea that the courts should have an option between a fine and imprisonment for offences under the Bill.
I am pleased to move the amendment, which I hope will meet with the approval of the House. It provides that, on conviction on indictment—that is, by a jury—the court can sentence the offender to a maximum of two years' imprisonment or to an unlimited fine or to both. However, imprisonment would not be available on a summary conviction.
Following consultations with the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office, I have been led to conclude that those penalties are appropriate given the special situation of Antarctica, in particular its distance from the United Kingdom and the consequent difficulties of policing it, and the paramount need to protect its pristine ecological state and its priceless flora and fauna.
There seems to be no justification for providing for imprisonment on summary conviction. Imprisonment should be reserved for the worst examples of the offences

that merit trial by jury. I hope, as I am sure all hon. Members hope, that we shall not see offences of that magnitude or gravity.
Although an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment will probably be sufficient in the most serious cases, it is possible to envisage cases in which a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate way to deal with the crime and to serve as a deterrent to others. The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North for raising the matter in Committee. I hope that he will feel that the amendment meets the point that he helpfully raised with us.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not normally favour a tough sentencing policy, because I do not believe that that necessarily solves the problems of crime. However, I recognise that a sentencing policy can be a deterrent. I moved my amendment in Committee because we are talking about potential breaches of the treaty and the law in relation to which oil and mineral companies may try to undertake illegal exploration for minerals on the continent. Clearly, the prizes of such activity are potentially enormous. Therefore, the deterrent effect of a fine—albeit an unlimited fine—would be small beer to a company. The possibility of imprisonment might concentrate the minds of the senior directors.

Lady Olga Maitland: While the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that there may be a danger of illegal exploration for minerals, does he agree that pressure groups like Greenpeace might be in the same category if they were acting illegally in pursuance of their own aims? Does he agree that those groups must recognise that they will be subject to the same disciplines?

Mr. Corbyn: It is unfortunate to try to place Greenpeace in the same category as a mineral company. Greenpeace has rather different objectives, which I suggest are wholly more peaceful. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has perhaps not followed these matters very closely. If she were to read the history of the subject, she would understand that Greenpeace campaigned for a permit system in the first place. Greenpeace suggested the amendment that I tabled in Committee about the imprisonment of offenders. Greenpeace wants to protect the Antarctic from forces that may wish to do it harm. I have no idea what illegal activities the hon. Lady suggests.
I disagree with the amendment only in relation to the term of imprisonment. My amendment left it open to the courts to decide what the sentencing policy should be, the length and term of imprisonment and the prison venue. I have not said whether the prison should be in the Antarctic. It might be expensive to administer a prison in the Antarctic, but it is an interesting idea.
I merely question whether two years is appropriate, because we are talking about potentially serious damage. The reason why I say that it is serious is simple. For example, if a company started illegally exploring for oil, or, indeed, an oil spill took place from a vessel that was supporting exploration activities, the damage would be enormous. We are talking about a cold environment, slow biodegradation of oil or anything else that is spilt in the sea, and the danger of oil getting under the ice shelf. The dangers are enormous.
The distances are also enormous for any help to get there to assist with a clean-up operation or, indeed, an accident. Anyone who is considering illegal mining


activities or scientific activities in the Antarctic should get a severe warning from the Bill. That warning would be much better heeded if the prospect of managing directors and others going to prison is dealt with.
1 pm
I want to make two brief points in addition to that. First, in Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised a number of interesting and important points about the applicability of Scottish law to the Antarctic, and whether English law would have supremacy over Scottish law in such matters, because Scottish law is not written on to the face of the Bill. At the end of the many discussions on that point, I was left with the impression that the Minister would reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman was promoting. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman spoke on this amendment, he would be able to help us on the matter. I hope that, that important point will be dealt with.
Secondly, the Antarctic is in a strange legal position, in that it is a huge continent; no one is permanently resident there. There are claims by a number of countries on the land mass of the Antarctic and the sea area. Most of the claims are overlapping and are, therefore, potentially in conflict. For example, Britain, Chile and Argentina all claim part of the continent. There is also a large unclaimed part of the continent. As a result, there is a legal minefield when prosecuting someone for illegal activities.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale correctly pointed out that when a non-signatory nation is involved in an illegal expedition, it is extremely difficult to pursue a prosecution against it. That is why it is important that the House not only passes the Bill into our national legislation but urges all the other 26 treaty nations to do the same. We need a United Nations statement of support for legislation, or much wider acceptance of the Madrid protocol by non-treaty nations. That is extremely important.
Earlier, we talked about the merchant shipping industry and the way in which flags of convenience abuse shipping law around the world. One could have exactly the same situation in which explorations and investigations were carried out illegally by nationals from non-treaty nations, which effectively go beyond the arm of the law in that matter.
There is also a need for a diplomatic offensive by the treaty nations, once it has been agreed by national Parliaments, to ensure that the importance and effect of protecting the Antarctic environment is not undermined. The Madrid protocol was an enormous step forward, but it could easily be destroyed by illegal activities by non-signatory nations.

Mr. Jopling: I take the point of the hon. Member for Islington, North about the intricacies of Scottish and English law. I can only repeat what I said in Committee—I absolutely refuse to get into the detail of that matter. [Interruption.] The Minister is a lawyer, which I am not. He is much more capable of dealing with those points than I am.
With regard to the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, I take it that the general tone of what he said was that he welcomed the amendment. On that basis, I hope that the House will accept it.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I shall be brief. In Committee, we discussed the question of Scottish law. I think that we can take it from the absence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who raised the matter—he is probably in Orkney now—that he was satisfied with the answer that we were able to give him. The vacancies on the Liberal Democrat Benches today probably mean that the party is satisfied with the Bill in its entirety and does not wish to scrutinise it any further. I cannot speak for Liberal Democrats, but their absence must be trying to tell us something.
As regards the other matter that was raised quite fairly by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—the more general issue of the enforcement of jurisdiction— I should like to return to that if I may in the slightly more general debate which we will have at Third Reading.

Mr. Corbyn: I would be the last person in the world to speak for the Liberal Democrats on this matter, and I would not want there to be any confusion in the House. I must say that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was not happy when he talked to me after the Committee. There is a perfectly serious point to be made about the primacy of English or Scottish law, because, under the Act of Union between England and Scotland, there is supposed to be equality of provision in law between both countries.
The absence of a reference to Scottish law in this Bill seems to suggest either that Scottish law applies automatically, because it is not mentioned, or that it does not apply at all and that anyone who is found guilty of, or is charged with, a breach of the law in the Antarctic will therefore be tried under English law.
There are significant differences in representation and methods of court procedures between English and Scottish law. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether—perhaps when the Bill goes to the Lords—the Law Officers would be able to give advice and some interpretation on the matter. The hon. Gentleman's point was not a narrow one. I understand that he has to be in Orkney today, and that is why he is not here.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We discussed the matter at some length in Committee and I am certainly satisfied that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory and has adequate precedents in other legislation. Exactly the same approach is adopted, for instance, in the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and I am not aware of difficulties that have arisen in implementing or enforcing that legislation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Briefly on that point, I think that the House might have expected a little more detail from the Minister on the issue of Scottish law raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Incidentally, I think that the last time that an hon. Member from Islington interfered—if I may use that word—in Scottish affairs—a constitutional crisis erupted thereafter which has not been totally resolved.
If we are not able to clarify the matter during our proceedings, we would expect that, should the Bill go to another place, the Lord Chancellor—with his background—would perhaps produce a little more detail.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

EXTENT.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 4 after 'modifications' insert '(including additions or omissions)'.
This, again, is a technical amendment, which I hope the House will believe strengthens the Bill. Clause 34(3)(c) provides that, in extending the provisions of the Bill to dependent territories, the Order in Council may modify those provisions. That will consist mostly in making minor adjustments to take account of the different constitutional and legal situations of the various territories.
For instance, a reference to a Secretary of State is probably meaningless in the Isle of Man or the Channel islands, and would need to be changed in those cases to Governor. The amendment makes it clear that such changes can be made by adding or omitting provisions. It is a technical amendment, which I hope will receive the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As a Back-Bench Member, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to guide such important legislation through the House. I think that I said on Second Reading that I had been lucky enough to draw a place in the ballot on two previous occasions which resulted in the enactment of two Bills: one in the 1960s that dealt with assistance to parish councils; and, more recently, one dealing with children's seat belts. Important as those were, they were not as important as this Bill.
This is the first time that I have drawn a place in the first six in the ballot, so I am especially happy that such a worthwhile Bill will enable me to complete a hat trick of getting private Member's Bills on to the statute book. I have enjoyed the experience enormously and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed keen enthusiasm for the Bill
I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who contributed so much. I must also mention the extremely distinguished Members from both sides of the House who were kind enough to sponsor the Bill. I suspect that it is a long time since a private Member's Bill received such distinguished support.
I must also express my gratitude to the Foreign Office and especially to the officials who worked exceptionally hard. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, some of them are in Japan for important meetings dealing with Antarctic matters. They have been a splendid team and could not have given me more help and support.
Our discussions during the passage of the Bill have shown that no Member of the House has, or pretends to have, a monopoly of concern for the Antarctic environment. I have been impressed by the desire of hon. Members on both sides to protect that unique area of the world. Our role is to discover how best to achieve that aim and there are many ways of doing so.
I was very saddened to see a pathetic space filler in this morning's edition of The Independent written by a Mr. Wilkie. It seems to be a cheap and snide way of attacking the royal family under the guise of the most helpful support

that the Princess Royal has given to try to preserve the heritage of the Antarctic continent in various ways. I hope that we shall be spared other weasely articles of that sort.
For this country and its citizens, the enactment of the Bill will secure necessary legal protection and it will allow the United Kingdom to ratify the environment protocol to the Antarctic treaty which, as hon. Members know, provides a comprehensive international framework for protecting the Antarctic environment.
The protocol cannot enter into force until it has been ratified by all 26 Antarctic treaty consultative parties. So far, I understand that six have ratified and that most of the others intend to do so by the end of this year. If the Bill is enacted by the summer, this country should be able to ratify by the end of the year and I think that everyone in the House hopes that that will happen.
The advantage of getting the Bill through all its stages today is that their Lordships, many of whom will have a strong interest in it, will have the proper amount of time to discuss and examine it. I am pleased that my noble Friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein will look after the Bill when it arrives in another place.
I hope that we shall ratify the Bill before the end of the year. The United Kingdom was instrumental in introducing the protocol and we should not lag behind others in the process of ratifying. Timely ratification would send a clear signal from this country of our manifest concern for the Antarctic environment. It would demonstrate, as nothing else could, the United Kingdom's continuing commitment to the protection of the Antarctic environment and to the Antarctic treaty system.
Our thorough debates on Second Reading, in Committee and again today have provided considerable opportunity for all of us to debate the Bill. I hope that the amendments that have just been accepted on Report meet most of the concerns of hon. Members and that, once they have had time to reflect, hon. Members will agree that the provisions of the Bill now represent the best means of providing the necessary legal powers to protect Antarctica.
On that note, and expressing once more my thanks to all concerned, I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on a remarkable achievement. He referred to his hat trick. As one who, almost eight years ago to the day, had my own Bill receive its Third Reading, I realise that those matters depend very much on luck, but the right hon. Gentleman has displayed a commitment and an ability that say much for him. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has also made a substantial contribution to the Bill, and we thank him warmly for his part.
When I referred earlier to the role of a former Islington Member, it was, of course, in a jocular sense—perhaps heavily disguised. But I notice that Islington has not made the mistake of electing a Scottish Member since that time.

Mr. Corbyn: I must defend Islington's history on that matter. The former Member for Islington, South, George Cunningham, was Scottish and the current Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was born and brought up in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A former Member for Islington, East was Chairman of Ways and Means, so I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will tread carefully in that area.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the House deeply appreciates the tremendous contribution that Islington continues to make—and in climbing the Munros.
The Opposition have said that we support the Bill. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is very much involved in the environmental matters to which the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred, have sponsored the Bill.
The Bill calls for the highest degree of environmental protection for the Antarctic. The Madrid protocol, which has been waiting for ratification since 1991, deserves that and the Bill takes it a step forward. It reflects the manifest consensus and all-party agreement that has been achieved. I would not chide, as the Minister did, the Liberal Democrats for not being present. In fairness, there are not many of them. If one has a constituency as far north as Orkney, it is not easy to be here, so the Minister would be mistaken to read too much into the absence of that hon. Member.
The Labour party is concerned that we should not encourage exploitation of commercial interests in that area. We have consistently supported the need for the protection of Antarctica as a world wilderness park. We welcome the fact that the Bill makes mineral exploitation and mineral resource activities impossible in that place.
In earlier days, the Government—who seem to have given the Bill a fair wind—were sceptical about the role of Australia and France. They seem to be catching up. The representations that we have all received from our constituents, especially younger constituents, on those matters are a sign that the Government are catching up with public opinion and I am glad that that is happening.
There are problems in respect of the United Nations and the role that some people there see for themselves. That debate should continue and we should encourage nations that are not involved in the treaty and the concord to accept that they also have an important role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), when she spoke on Second Reading, asked the Government how they envisaged the development of the secretarial arrangements and I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House more information about that if he is able to do so.
Following the discussions in Rio, the GATT agreement, and the strong representations about the environment from Opposition Members, we should like the Bill to be speedily implemented. We hope that the Government will ensure that the important scrutiny in another place does not delay implementation. In that spirit, I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and everyone responsible for the Bill, and look forward to Royal Assent as soon as possible.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My intervention on Third Reading will be brief because I have not participated in debates hitherto and I should not like to irritate anyone in the House unnecessarily.
I have followed the Bill's progress since it began, and I add my words of thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) for the work that he and other people have done in bringing the Bill to Third Reading and, I hope, to a successful conclusion. I hope that, anticipating its future return from another place, the Bill will complete its stages. It is a very important piece of legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred correctly to his successful record, which might be ascribed to fortuity, but also to his skill in drawing the right number in the ballot. Over the years, he has completed what he called his hat trick. That makes me jealous when I think that my last private Member's Bill was quite a few years ago, but at least for a while it was called an Act under one's own name, which is rather a nice thing to do, and other Members have achieved that over the years. If the Bill is called "the Jopling Act" when it completes all its stages, as I hope, would be an even better expression of the achievement of my right hon. Friend.
Over the years, we have had many conversations and discussions together. I have always regarded my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale as a very fair person in the political cockpit, and his objective fairness in the Bill has helped it to gain the support that it now receives from all parts of the House. I heard many hon. Members who were involved in Committee—I was not—commenting on the skilful way in which my right hon. Friend handled the Bill in Committee.
The Bill is legislation dealing with treaty co-operation, which is a wonderful example of international cooperation. It is still in its early stages because we think of that legislation as being for centuries ahead rather than decades, and perhaps there will be further measures in due course. Therefore, I am also delighted that the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is present to complete Third Reading on behalf of the Government, as he has been on previous stages, showing that the measured incidence of true balanced international co-operation, and all countries working together, rather than one country seeking to gain and score points over other countries, is an example and a lesson not only for the European Union, but for that vital part of the planet. I am sure that that is of special interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
In conclusion, in commending Third Reading and hoping that it will be supported by all parts of the House, I shall refer briefly to a specific, but very important matter. I hope that the Minister of State, and perhaps also my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale if he decides that he wishes to intervene again on Third Reading, will refer to it.
There are anxieties for the future, rather than now, about the control and development of tourism in the area covered by the Bill and the international treaties governing it. The controls seem adequate now and penetration by conventional tourism is extremely primitive and limited, and involves a handful of people—certainly it has not reached levels that would cause alarm. But there is worldwide anxiety among the people who follow the subject closely—experts who represent the industry as well as decent people who represent the global environmental interests of the planet. They are anxious that, although there has been virtually no exploitation in terms of tourism, the area could be threatened in future. I am not saying that it will happen in the foreseeable future. The controls appear


to be stringent. The penalties in the legislation would apply not simply to mineral and exploration companies, but to other human commercial activities.
However, the planet is small in the sense that the tourist industry is now virtually everywhere. Everyone complains about the despoliation of coastlines.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way as I wish to be brief. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. Perhaps she will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In all other areas of the world, such exploitation has reached a high level, and there is even plundering. There is certainly excessive exploitation. I am not straying out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in case you are looking ominously at me. I hope that Antarctica will be spared such exploitation. There is every reason to assume that it will be, provided that intergovernmental controls and international co-operation are adequate for the future. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure hon. Members, as he did successfully in Committee, I and, I think, listeners and viewers, will be grateful to him.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and congratulate him on having had the good fortune to come in the first six in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I have not yet been drawn in the first 60, so I do not know how he succeeds—perhaps he will let me know.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for choosing the subject. It is extremely important to enact the Bill. At the beginning of the Committee stage, we placed on record the fact that we should have preferred it to be a Government Bill, but we now have a Bill which has passed through Committee, which is extremely important. The subject of the Antarctic is hardly ever likely to grab all the headlines in this country, but the Bill is an important piece of legislation.
The Antarctic is an extremely important place. It is the only part of the world in relatively pristine condition. It is the only part of the world to be the subject of a treaty, the opening lines of which state that the Antarctic shall henceforth be a place of peace. That treaty was drawn up in 1959 at the height of the cold war. It is the only place where we can look at what we are doing to the planet. We can study what we are doing to the air and the sea, and the of pollution that we are putting into the air. Therefore, it is an important centre of research.
To achieve those goals, we need legislation—through national Parliaments, international agreement and constant monitoring. The passing of treaties, protocols and conventions is all very well in the rarefied atmospheres around beige tables in expensive hotels in faraway places, but what matters is what happens on the ground. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world has the same benign attitude towards the Antarctic as many of us who are speaking in today's debate.
As I understand it, ratification has been achieved in Australia—just last week—and in Argentina, Peru, Equador, Spain, France and Norway, which is important. It is also important that the Bill is now enacted. I expressed misgivings about some sections of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope that those matters will be further considered in the House of Lords. I

mentioned the permit system and its publication. I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will reflect again on the issue of delegated powers being given to the British Antarctic Survey so that it is able to be judge and jury of its own permits in a limited sphere. I hope that he will also reflect on the current lack of clarity. Perhaps he will tell us about the type of appeals that will be used for those who have been refused a permit. How will he monitor the permits system? It must be effective to ensure that the importance of Madrid is not left behind.
Just this morning, I looked at the report of the 1989 discussions on Antarctica and realised how far we have moved. In 1989, we discussed the measure that subsequently became the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989. That measure would have allowed mining exploration in the Antarctic and it is a tribute to campaigners all over the world that we are now discussing the long-term preservation of that continent and the prevention of mining exploration and exploitation there.
I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of when he expects the Bill to be given Royal Assent. We also need to know the date of implementation. I understand that the Minister hopes that it will be implemented fairly soon. I hope that that is true so that we can join that growing band of nations that approve of such legislation.
The current Kyoto conference is part of a process on the Antarctic and involves Governments and non-governmental organisations. We need to know the attitude that the Government will adopt at that conference and when we shall receive a statement and report.
The lack of inclusion in the Bill of the deep sea bed is unfortunate. We must ensure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on Third Reading and hon. Members must not refer to matters that are not in the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: Would I be in order if I referred with pleasure to the fact that the sea is included in the Bill, but that what lies under it is not, and do not use the words that you do not want me to use, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had a warning from the Chair and he must proceed as he judges appropriate. I shall rule accordingly.

Mr. Corbyn: I count that as a yellow card.
I hope that the House of Lords will consider the whole question of future exploration and exploitation of the deep sea bed, because that is important in considering the Bill. Some of us expressed concern about the effectiveness of the Bill in that area. It may be covered by a future United Nations law of the sea conference. Perhaps the Minister would write and tell me whether a UK citizen would be forbidden to mine in that area because of the UN law of the sea, or whether that would be covered by the legislation.

Mr. Jopling: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed a trick. His amendment on the deep sea bed was evidently in order in Committee. With respect, I am surprised that it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to mention it now. However, it is not for me to fight the hon. Gentleman's battles.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not manage to get his amendment into the Bill, which is


what we are considering on Third Reading. If he had been successful he would be in order, but he was not successful so he is not.

Mr. Jopling: I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for trying to provoke you.
I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that United Kingdom law already prohibits United Kingdom nationals from mining the deep sea bed or exploring for minerals unless they have a licence. That prohibition is contained in the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. Therefore, another prohibition specifically for Antarctica is not required.

Mr. Corbyn: I thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in cancelling my yellow card, but obviously not quite. I thank him for his comments about the 1981 Act, which is important. However, the legislation that passed through the American Congress and the Australian federal Parliament implementing the Madrid protocol—which the British Government also signed—includes a specific reference to the sea bed, which is rather different.
There may be giant oil reserves under the Antarctic. This morning, I received a lengthy letter from Alan Hemmings, who works for Greenpeace in New Zealand, concerning that gap in the legislation of national Parliaments, the British Parliament's ratification of the Madrid protocol and what is likely to happen with mineral exploration in future.
There are 21 sedimentary basins within the Antarctic continent, so there is a good probability of finding hydrocarbons there. There may be mineral areas outside those covered by the Bill. Although the protocol is likely to remain in force for as long as 50 years, debate on the Bill has been on the assumption that the technology does not exist to undertake deep-sea exploration and mining of Antarctic minerals. In an attempt to pour oil on troubled water—if that is not an unfortunate metaphor—when debating the 1989 Act, the Government often argued, "It doesn't matter very much, because nobody can get down there to mine the oil, even if they had the authority." I beg to differ.
Although the oil is deep under the Antarctic, it is not that much deeper than mining under way elsewhere at present. Two thousand metres is extremely deep water, but production is under way at 900 m in the Gulf of Mexico and exploration wells are being drilled at 2,300 m elsewhere.
Having succeeded in securing the Madrid protocol and making provision in the legislation of national Parliaments, it is essential that we realise that acknowledgement of the fundamental difference between the Antarctic and the rest of the world. We are saying that it is a place of peace, exploration and protection and not a place for mining over the next 50 years or, I hope, any time thereafter. If we acknowledge that, we shall be taking an important step forward.
If, however, we say, sotto voce, "It's okay; at some point mining will be allowed there", the pressure will be on for permits to be granted and exploration that undermines the principles of the Madrid protocol. I hope that we shall clearly state that we mean to protect the Antarctic now and

for ever more against mineral exploration and exploitation; its fauna, flora and wildlife; and the sea and what lies below it.
I hope that the other place will return to the question of overflying aircraft which was raised several times in Committee. It is not a minor issue, because the spirit of the Bill could be breached by low-flying aircraft. If an irresponsible operator used an unsuitable aircraft and it crashed in the Antarctic, none of the rescue services or other facilities available in other parts of the world would be at hand. It would fall to the scientific research bases to mount a rescue operation, and that is not their function.
As to tourism, in the context of total preservation of the continent, the ideal would be to have none—but many people have a desire to visit and to see the Antarctic and I understand and share that wish. The people operating the treaty and protocol system must give an assurance that a strict limit will be placed on where tourist operators can go and what they can do. They are already limited, to the extent that tourists cannot touch anything or take anything away. Tourist activities should also be properly financed and equipped. If thin-hulled vessels are used, there will be a serious risk of sinking after colliding with an iceberg, and rescue facilities will be minimal. The crash of the Air New Zealand aircraft shows just how serious it is when any kind of accident takes place in the Antarctic.
The preservation of the flora and fauna of the Antarctic is very important. The whale population of the Antarctic waters has been most disgracefully depleted over decades. Indeed, for a long time, whaling was part and parcel of the British fishing industry, based in Whitby and many other places. We did achieve—everyone who is concerned about these things—the principles of the international whaling convention, of controls on numbers and of protection. Tragically, many countries lied about what they were doing. The Soviet Union lied about the number of whales that it was taking. Japan has consistently sought to undermine the international whaling conventions by the use of what it calls "scientific whaling", which ends up on dinner plates in expensive restaurants in Tokyo. Norway seems to think that it is okay to continue whaling in the northern hemisphere. We must recognise that we are dealing with a precious and highly intelligent mammal. They should be protected for all time, not only in the Antarctic waters but in the rest of the world. Any pressure that we can put on the Japanese and Norwegian Governments to cease their disgraceful practice of whaling will be an extremely important step forward.
This Bill is important. It is a great advance in many respects. I have outlined my areas of concern—the permit system, the deep sea bed and the overflying of aircraft in that area. I hope that, when the Bill goes to the other place, further consideration will be given to those matters. I hope also that we in this House will be prepared to come back and consider it again when regulations are proposed, and when the Government make a statement about what has gone on at the Kyoto conference, because if we are serious about protecting the environment, we must be vigilant. We might have good intentions, but an awful lot of money might be made by people who have nothing but bad intentions towards that continent. The damage that has been done to the whale population is testament to that.
I put on record my thanks to those organisations and campaigns all around the world that changed the atmosphere after 1989, including the World Wide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace, but more personally to Jagdish


Patel, who used to be Greenpeace's co-ordinator on the Antarctic—it is now Ian Reddish—and Sandy Philips from the World Wide Fund for Nature for her work and advice in drawing up pieces of legislation. Without those campaigns, Parliaments around the world would not now be passing this legislation. We would not now be looking at—to the degree that it almost is—the world park in the Antarctic. Instead, we would be looking at something rather worse. I congratulate them and the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on being able to introduce this piece of legislation and, I hope, get it through.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill has the Government's full and enthusiastic support. It is worth reminding ourselves of its importance and, indeed, of the huge extent of the area about which we are legislating. It is not often that the House of Commons has an opportunity to legislate on an area that is the size of Europe and the United States combined. Indeed, the Antarctic, with its surrounding seas, covers an area of about one tenth of the size of the globe. It is also the largest and most pristine wilderness on earth. It is the coldest, the windiest, the highest, the driest and the least inhabited of all our continents.
Although it sounds a rather inhospitable place, that very fact makes Antarctica of enormous interest scientifically. It is because of its pristine condition that it provides good conditions for the study of subjects such as global warming, the rise of sea levels, atmospheric pollution and ozone depletion. It is covered with a very deep and thick ice cap. Indeed, the Antarctic is thought to contain some 90 per cent. of the world's ice and some 70 per cent. of its fresh water, so today we are considering a matter of great importance. It is right that this country has played such a leading part in the setting up of the Antarctic treaty and now its environmental protocol, which we hope to proceed to ratify as a result of the Bill.
If hon. Members have any spare time, I hope that they will take an interest in the present scientific work, especially that conducted by the British Antarctic Survey. I am sure that they would also be very interested in the early years of this country's scientific engagement with Antarctica and in the extraordinary stories of exploration and heroism. We have today discussed nature in terms of its being a fragile and delicate flower, but, to the men of the early expeditions, it was something to be struggled with, often in conditions in which their very survival was in doubt.
In view of our early engagement and interest in that continent, it is right that we were the first to sign the

environmental protocol and, as a result of the Bill, we hope to be ratifying the treaty before the end of this year. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the need to get as many other countries as possible to sign the Antarctic treaty. I do not wish to be negative, but only realistic, when I say that the Bill would apply only to the United Kingdom and, once it had been extended to them, to our dependent territories. That is perhaps an obvious point, but it is important. We cannot legislate for other states. We cannot apply our laws to the nationals of other states except when they are in our territory, and we have to recognise the Bill's limitation in that respect.
There are more than 180 sovereign states in the world, but only about 40 are party to the Antarctic treaty. They may include the biggest and most populous states on earth, but many states are not party to the Antarctic treaty so our ability to control their activities and those of their nationals in Antarctica is inevitably limited.
I wish to respond to two points of detail. I shall be brief because I am aware that the House has other legislation to consider. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), raised the issue of an Antarctic treaty secretariat. We have long supported the creation of a secretariat and it is one of the issues being discussed in Kyoto, probably even as we speak. It is certainly on the agenda. In due course, we hope to get agreement between the treaty parties about the siting of a secretariat.
I deal now with tourism, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It does not have a specific annexe to the protocol, but it is referred to explicitly in it. The very advantage of the Bill, and the protocol to which it relates, is its flexibility. If, in due course, tourism were to become a serious threat to the environment of Antarctica, it would be possible to add a specific annexe to deal with it. At the moment, I am satisfied that the controls over tourists and their expeditions to Antarctica are adequately covered in the legislation.
I am aware that other points have been raised today. If they have not been debated in Committee and if I have not covered them, I am willing to write to hon. Members or to have them raised specifically in another place in due course.
I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his skill in piloting the Bill this far. I thank him for his tribute to officials in my Department and to the work that they have done. His tribute will be much appreciated. I give my full support to the Bill's Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary Commissioner Bill

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION

Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, leave out from end of line 24 to end of line 6 on page 2.
This is a probing amendment. It is designed to investigate how far the effects of the Bill will go. I welcome the Bill and I believe that it will be warmly welcomed generally. It remedies an important jurisdictional gap in the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) on seeking to remedy that gap.
The origins of the amendment are deeply connected with the origins of the Bill. The gap that the Bill seeks to remedy is the gap that exists in the case of tribunals whose members are not appointed by the Lord Chancellor. In the case of tribunals that are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 enables the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate maladministration by the officials in the tribunals concerned. The Bill seeks to follow suit in the case of tribunals that are not appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
The words that I seek to remove are taken from the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and their purpose is clear. It is to give effect to the distinction between purely administrative actions taken by staff and actions that are taken in the course of the exercise of a judicial function. The purpose of the amendment is to investigate how far the ombudsman can go in investigating administrative actions and where the boundary lies between administrative actions and those taken in the exercise of judicial functions. The point will be important in the work of the courts, and needs to be clarified.

Mr. Gerald Malone: I think that I can satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). He seeks to discover the depth of the principle by which the Parliamentary Commissioner can look at administrative acts and where the boundary lies between looking at administrative acts and acts that reach a judicial conclusion.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of 1990–91, which sets out the principle well. The Committee stated:
all decisions of civil servants and others within appropriate departments and public bodies involving maladministration should be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner"—
this is the important point—
unless any constitutional principle … dictates otherwise.
The principle that underlines the clause and at which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere is looking is the principle of separation of responsibilities—the judicial process as separate from the administrative process.
I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The clause is simply a reiteration of the principle that was enunciated in the Parliamentary Commissioner

Act 1967, which first put the Parliamentary Commissioner on to the playing field. The clause does no more than that. It means, in simple terms, that the legislation as it stands allows the Commissioner to look at administrative acts, but not at anything that could be interpreted as affecting the judicial aspect of any tribunal. In other words, it does not allow the Parliamentary Commissioner to act as another court of appeal.
The matters about which my hon. Friend is concerned are, in any event, always subject to appeal to other courts of law. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory for my hon. Friend, that he is reassured and that he will, on that basis, withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I apologise to the House as I will have to leave the Chamber at 2pm for a ministerial engagement. No discourtesy is meant by that.

Mr. John Garrett: I will miss the Minister.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) says that he will miss me, and I am sure that that is correct.
I crave the indulgence of the House to make a personal comment. I last stood at the Dispatch Box in relation to this Bill in the debate on the money resolution. The House will not be surprised to learn that that motion was moved by Bob Cryer. I want to take this opportunity to place on the record my tribute to Bob Cryer. By his own lights and ideals as a socialist, he was a man of iron-hard integrity. He had great skill as a parliamentarian. I considered him to be a friend and I would like to express my admiration for his integrity and skill and the sense of loss of the House at his departure.
Clause 1 is the substantive clause in this two-clause Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) on introducing this useful Bill, which I hope will receive support from all hon. Members. It is now 27 years since the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner was established. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that his investigations have significantly strengthened the ability of hon. Members to protect the individual against administrative abuses. I commend the Parliamentary Commissioner, Mr. William Reid, and his staff for the valuable and painstaking work that they undertake.
The Bill is sound, and clause 1 is well drafted. There are good reasons in principle for allowing the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate the administrative actions of the administrative staff in tribunals. The distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has just made with respect to the judicial aspects is very apposite. The clause is aimed solely at administrative actions.
The clause will give members of the public an additional avenue of redress when things go wrong and it will demonstrate that the administrative functions and actions of tribunals are subject to the same public scrutiny as those of other Departments and bodies funded by


Parliament, but without prejudicing the independence of tribunals so far as their decisions are concerned, or creating a secondary appeal process.
I take the opportunity in this clause stand part debate to welcome the Bill. I commend clause 1 to the House and wish the whole Bill as speedy a passage into law as is consistent with the proper use of this opportunity to review the protection that Parliament provides for the citizen and which is a very important part of the parliamentary function.

Mr. Garrett: I will also be brief. I welcome the Bill to extend the scope of the ombudsman. Flicking through a book that I wrote on Parliament not all that long ago, I found, on page 81, that I proposed this very measure. There is foresight for you.
However, the Bill is really only a palliative which happens to suit the Government. There are several defects in the ombudsman system, which I hope the Government will give their views on when they reply to the Select Committee's report of November 1993. I believe that we are due for a report on that within a month or so.
As the Lord Chancellor said in his Hamlyn lecture:
Ombudsman schemes have gained the confidence and imagination of the public.
Some of the defects go wider than the Bill and I cannot refer to them at length. I am concerned that the Select Committee's proposal that the ombudsman should be able to initiate studies—not on a complaint—should be followed up. That is important. Personally, I believe that the MP filter should be removed, because it is clear from the eccentric distribution of cases taken up by hon. Members that many never reach the ombudsman because of the views of an hon. Member, which may not be appropriate.
As we have already heard, the Bill is concerned about jurisdiction. It enables the ombudsman to examine administrative matters which at present are outside his jurisdiction. The Bill proposes that the staff of more tribunals should be brought within that jurisdiction and it proposes enabling powers, which I particularly welcome, exercisable by order which would enable further tribunals to be added later to the list of those that would fall within
the scope.
In his 1993 report, the ombudsman identified a much more substantial problem with jurisdiction, the rapid growth of quangos, not all of which he was told about the creation of—if that is English. I am sure that hon. Members will understand what I am trying to say. In the report, the ombudsman says that to the best of his knowledge the following were added to his jurisdiction: the Welsh Language Board, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, the rail regulator, the Office of the Director General of the National Lottery, the Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action and the Urban Regeneration Agency.
He goes on to say that those bodies are within his jurisdiction
to the best of my knowledge",
because he is seldom consulted about such accretions, and it is usually through the good offices of the Office of Public Service and Science that he is told.
For all we know, a number of quangos are within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman of which he has not been notified. The matter is important, as quangos are on a rising curve again after a recent war against them. The number of

quangos will increase from about 2,000 to 7,700 by 1996. We find that there is no mechanism for identifying what is within the ombudsman's jurisdiction.
2 pm
We also have another problem. A curious feature of the unelected state, which is growing so rapidly, is that, with the growth in market testing, more private bodies apparently continue to fall within the scope of the ombudsman but not the National Audit Office. That means that public and parliamentary accountability is out of balance. We can call the entities to account for their decisions, but not their spending.
I should like to know what the Government think. I realise that the Minister will be absent—he has already gone—but perhaps he could write to me about what machinery is proposed to notify the ombudsman of the increases in his jurisdiction.

Mr. Malone: The Bill gives a secondary power to specify through secondary legislation additional bodies that can come within the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is an extremely useful measure, and it should deal effectively with the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Garrett: The measure is useful, but it is not useful enough. The Select Committee said:
We consider that the evidence suggests that the current system of jurisdiction is both bureaucratic and confusing & Any obstacle to clear and transparent access to the Ombudsman is to be deplored. It is the case that a large percentage of matters referred to the Ombudsman are not pursued because they are outside jurisdiction either as bodies or as subjects, and this has a negative effect on access and usage.
The Select Committee therefore proposes that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be amended to specify exclusions in the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, rather than inclusions. That is by far the better way to do it. When the Government reply to the Select Committee, I hope that such a reform will be introduced.
Finally, as in so many of our institutions, it is time that power moved from Whitehall to Westminster. It is wrong that the expenditure of the ombudsman's office is sanctioned by the Treasury and the ombudsman is appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. The position should be put on exactly the same footing as the Comptroller and Auditor General, where the Public Accounts Commission decides on the expenditure of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The ombudsman is an Officer of the House and is appointed by a motion of the House. As the Select Committee says, there should therefore be a public administration commission on exactly the same basis with the same powers. Why should the Government have anything to do with the scope of the ombudsman? Is it not wholly a parliamentary matter? The matter should be presented to the House by the Speaker, whose independence is woefully unexploited and undeveloped in this place; in other words, it should be wholly a parliamentary matter and the Government should stay out of it altogether.
The unfortunate thing is that Parliament exists to scrutinise and call to account the Government's actions simply to the extent to which the Government will allow. I do not think that that is good enough, and the whole business should be under the control of Parliament.
In the meantime—we must get on—this seems to me to be a worthwhile piece of legislation, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) on introducing it. The Bill has the support of the Opposition, but the fact remains that there are some major outstanding matters with regard to the ombudsman and his powers, discretion, scope and jurisdiction which the House must discuss soon.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Briefly, I speak in support of the legislation which the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) has brought to the House. I speak as a Member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and, on behalf of the Committee, I want to put our thanks on record for the work done by the Parliamentary Commissioner and his limited staff. They cover a wide range of areas and Government Departments, and they do so assiduously. They constantly make every effort to do so as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that it would be good to see an opportunity whereby the scope of the work of the ombudsman can be extended.This is a first step today. I obviously recommend the report of the Select Committee, and I hope that Government will take up some of those recommendations—and particularly that everything should be included unless it is excluded, if I may paraphrase a phrase that is used in other spheres. That way will give power not to the ombudsman but to the citizen, and that is what the role of the ombudsman is about. The Bill—as far as it goes—is a good step towards that happening.
I hope that before long Parliament will reflect the wishes of the citizens of this country by ensuring that any redress that they have will be had at the highest level through the independence and the professionalism which the ombudsman has shown. I support the Bill and I hope that it gets through its stages as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Malone: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Now that the Bill is back in our safe hands and away from the care of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, may I first take the opportunity to thank all of my colleagues who supported this measure from both sides of the House —and it is an all-party measure.
In response to some of the points that were made during the clause stand part debate, I can say that the Bill is by way of being a halfway house between implementing something that the Parliamentary Commissioner saw was necessary as a matter of some urgency, and the response that will doubtless be made in due course to the full and comprehensive Select Committee report that is being considered by the Government at present. The gap that the Bill plugs is rather a glaring one and it is in one of the areas where the public come most regularly into confrontation —sometimes constructive—and contact with the Government machine. That is the area of social security administration. Owing to an administrative oversight,

which was ultimately identified as a legal loophole, it was necessary to bring the tribunals in that Department's jurisdiction into that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration through primary legislation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration drew the matter to the attention of the Government some time ago and I am extremely pleased that I had to opportunity to use a private Member's Bill to plug that loophole in fairly short order.
The Bill is highly relevant. For example, the tribunal that affects the Child Support Agency is one of tribunals that will come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, there is great concern about the agency. It is important for the public to know, when they inquire into the administration of legislation that clearly affects them, that they have the fail-safe mechanism of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration behind them. As a consequence of this measure, we will achieve some rationality in a situation that was becoming fairly urgent.
The second purpose of the Bill is that it provides a useful clear-up measure. When it was made known that the legislation might be put before the House, I am grateful that the Government asked all Government Departments which tribunals should be brought within its jurisdiction immediately. That is why there are four extra tribunals in the Bill and I welcome that fact.
Perhaps I can reassure Opposition Members who have questioned this. A reserve power will exist to enable them to put some pressure on the Government—if not to bring forward Orders in Council—should the Opposition feel that a matter arises or a tribunal crops up that has not been noticed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or anyone else, but which he should supervise. The matter can be dealt with quickly and, should the Government be persuaded to do so, can be placed under his remit by secondary legislation.
It has been a privilege for me to be able to introduce this measure, which seems a small step, but which will have great practical applications and interest for the public.
I thank all those hon. Members from both sides of the House who sponsored the Bill and also those officials who assisted me in drafting the legislation. I use the term "assisted" loosely. It is a euphemism because they assisted me throughout the Bill, from points a to z, and I am extremely grateful. I hope that the House will feel that this worthwhile measure deserves its Third Reading.

Mr. Simon Coombs: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) for the fact that I was unable to be here when the Bill was considered previously. I am delighted to be here in time to contribute to this debate and to welcome the Bill, which is extremely valuable.
The measure is a tidying-up operation and is long overdue. The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has exerted considerable pressure, and none too soon. I suspect that we have had to wait until now for such legislation primarily because of pressures on Government time. That is always a problem and I hope that it is one which the Government will one day recognise and that they will allow time for such measures,


which enable the House to come to terms with legislation that has fallen short of its intentions, perhaps only marginally but nevertheless in some important way.
I am glad to have this brief opportunity to address the House because of my concerns over one tribunal that will now be covered by legislation. This measure will bring the child support appeal tribunal under the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned the tribunal and the great public concern about the workings of the Child Support Agency.
My postbag continues to be full of letters from constituents asking for my help in tackling the appalling difficulties that they face as a result of the formula that Parliament agreed should be the basis for the operations of the CSA. We must secure every possible means to ensure justice for what I can only call the victims of the CSA. Wherever we see a problem, it should be dealt with.
I have no reason to be concerned with the working of the child support appeal tribunal—it has hardly started its work yet—and I cast no aspersions on the work of those individuals employed to deal with cases brought to it. Nevertheless, enough brief exists on the dealings of the Child Support Agency to make us want to ensure that every possible means is available to give those who fall under its malign influence recourse to justice. An increasing number of people are resorting to the courts for justice. Only last week, one of my constituents went to court and achieved £1,000 compensation, having received a mere apology from the Child Support Agency for saying that he had fathered a child, now aged 16 years, which he had not. It was a complete mistake and the accusation, which had come in the form of a letter, had been opened by his wife and caused the marriage to come under considerable strain for a short time. I am glad that he took the matter to court.
I do not wish to stray too far from the subject of the Bill, but I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allowed me to point out that people need recourse to justice and restitution when they are unfairly treated as a result of machinery that Parliament sets up. The Bill makes an important contribution in that respect. I am sure that, before long, other legal appeals against child support will be made. In due course, the European Court of Justice will inevitably be brought in to play because of the manifest unfairness of many of the formulae with which the Child Support Agency is currently required to deal. I hope that it will not be too long before the Government propose further changes in the assessment of child support.
It is important that we plug the gap in the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in order to protect the interests of our constituents, whatever they may be. I criticise none of the individuals who work for the tribunals, but we all know that mistakes happen in the best run families, as Dickens said. We must ensure that our constituents have recourse to justice in those circumstances.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester on his success in the ballot and on choosing this important measure. I am delighted to be here in the final moments of the Bill's passage through the House. I wish it good speed in the other place and, after the normal interval, into law where it will greatly benefit those few unfortunate constituents who, from time to time, need the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

Lady Olga Maitland: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) on presenting the Bill. It has an important role and I, too, am delighted to see that it is widening its scope of jurisdiction.
I particularly appreciate the fact that the disability appeal tribunals will be brought under the Bill's remit. In the forthcoming year, when the arrangements of who will be entitled to disability benefits will change, arguments and delays may arise and the ombudsman's role will be important.
The list includes child support appeal, social security, and medical tribunals, but I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not move his amendments seeking the insertion of other areas of activity such as the commissioners of income tax, industrial tribunals and rent assessment tribunals. I understand that those could be included under an order, but, knowing the civil service as I do, I know that orders can take a long time. [Interruption.] Up to the Government then, but, none the less, the mechanics are such that it would be more helpful if we simply had an all-embracing remit, such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who asked, rightly, why not have all in until one has a situation when one leaves something deliberately out. There is some merit in that.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East also mentioned a point with which I agreed, about trying to remove "the MP filter". I think that that was also said by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I have been helping a constituent by putting him in touch with the ombudsman. Every letter has had to go via me, accompanied by enraged comments asking why he has to go through me, not through any disrespect, but because it is cumbersome and awkward and he needs a speedy response. I agree with him.
Yesterday I met the ombudsman, Mr. William Reid. I found him very impressive and capable, and he has mentioned that difficulty to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As a result, although he was unable to provide immediate direct access, none the less a dog-leg situation was arranged whereby the introductory and concluding letters had to go through the Member of Parliament, but the intervening mechanics between the ombudsman and what I call "the client" can proceed. None the less, I do not understand why I need to be the filter. It is helpful for me to be informed, as in the case of a general practitioner being informed by a consultant or the hospital that a patient visits, but after that they get on it. That is something that I should like to put into the thinking process. I hope that we shall consider it another time.
The work of the ombudsman is enormously important and he has had considerable achievements in bringing redress. It is impossible for me to list all the achievements that he has had in one year, but it is helpful to give one example of the work that he has undertaken.
A woman and her family were detained for questioning at a United Kingdom airport after security markings on her passport were found to be blurred. She was interviewed by immigration officers and the police, but, by the time that it was accepted that she was the holder of a genuine passport, not a defective one, she and her family had missed their flight, which meant that she lost money. The family had to buy new tickets and the upshot was that the ombudsman


was able to intervene and to ensure that she was properly reimbursed for her financial losses resulting from a situation for which she was entirely blameless.
That is only one example of the important work that the ombudsman carries out. I am delighted that the Bill is now on the way and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester on getting it moving.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Building Conversion and Energy Conservation Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [11 February].

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was standing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to say, "Now", which is the word that I wish to hear?

Lady Olga Maitland: Now. I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was unfamiliar with the precise procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should be most grateful if the hon. Lady would ensure that she does know the procedure.

Lady Olga Maitland: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence in permitting me to continue with the Bill. It was launched in the House some weeks ago by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and it relates to a requirement that there should be insulation against heat loss of dwelling units provided by the conversion of existing dwellings and for connected purposes. In short, we are discussing bringing proper energy efficiency, and consequent savings, into the realm of houses and domestic units altogether. The Government are committed to improving energy efficiency in housing as part of their international commitment to reduce this country's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. It is an ambitious programme, but it does show the degree of the Government's commitment.
Domestic energy accounts for about one quarter of carbon dioxide emissions in this country. The programmes and measures in place to improve and promote energy efficiency across public and private housing sectors are ambitious and imaginative and constitute important improvements.
I wish to mention council housing and I am delighted to see that the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction is present. The Green House programme has established a network of replicable energy efficiency demonstration projects to encourage local authorities to develop and apply energy efficiency strategies within their housing programmes. It is a useful project. We are well aware of the general principles of energy conservation and, in a rather haphazard fashion, apply them to our homes. When we put lagging in the loft or install double glazing, we make an important start. But we know that our efforts are not as efficient as they might be and that we could probably do more.
As a result of the Green House programme, 180 schemes across 130 authorities have now been completed or are under way, with the funding over the three-year life of the programme totalling £60 million—no short measure of commitment. Overall, schemes are expected to deliver an average carbon dioxide saving of up to 50 per cent.—a considerable saving to our own pockets—and up to 40 per cent. reductions in energy consumption. That will have a significant effect in protecting the environment.
From 1993–94 onwards, local authorities are required to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes. I am sure that the principle is appreciated, but local authorities need a nudge to make that commitment. Energy efficiency is now one of the factors taken into account in considering the annual housing investment programme allocations.
Interim guidance draws on the lessons of the Green House programme and was issued in 1993 to help authorities and to show ways of maximising scope for cost-effective use of resources. It will be of enormous benefit. We should not consider only council housing. As we now have more diversified assisted housing programmes, we must also consider housing associations that fall within the same remit.
The Housing Corporation's scheme on development standards sets out the corporation's requirements and recommendations for all housing projects that receive housing association grant. It is also the basis on which the corporation will assess associations' performance in developing housing projects. Associations will be required to demonstrate exactly what action they are taking. They must help people appreciate the extent of the programme required.
We should consider the domestic sector. I have particular admiration for the housing energy efficiency scheme, which provides low-income households with advice and grants for insulation and draught-proofing. More than 500,000 homes have been provided with insulation since the scheme began in 1991, which is a high progress rate. The provision of the home energy efficiency scheme for 1994–95 is to be almost doubled and extended to include all householders over the age of 60 and the disabled. Bearing in mind the fact that those people fee] the cold most keenly, that will have a double benefit and I am sure that it will be greatly appreciated.
I should like to expand a little on the home energy efficiency scheme which provides grants for basic energy efficiency measures. It will pay for such measures as loft insulation, tank and pipe lagging, draught proofing and energy advice. In his Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor helpfully announced that provision for the home energy efficiency scheme was to be almost doubled and extended to pensioners.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

REGULATION OF POLITICAL FUNDING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 April.

MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 April.

HEDGEROWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 April.

NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 22 April.

DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 18th April put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Local Government not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and
(2) at the sitting on Monday 25th April—


(i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Sir John Cope relating to Customs and Excise not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and
(ii) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. William Waldegrave relating to Government Trading Funds not later than Ten o'clock;

and the first such Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Orders of the Day — Gordon Warren

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Nigel Forman: My reasons for raising the case of my constituent, Mr. Gordon Warren, on the Adjournment are that it is the longest-running constituency case in my 18 years as a Member of Parliament. I have attempted on many occasions to get a just and lasting settlement for Mr. Warren during 12 of those 18 years. I would have dropped the case long ago, as my constituent urged me to do several times, had I not been convinced of the injustice done to him and the moral strength of his cause.
I am making this final parliamentary attempt to clinch a just and lasting settlement for my constituent. I hope and believe that the debate will make a decisive difference.
I shall offer a brief history of the case, which should be of interest to the Minister and the House. The whole sorry saga began in April 1982 when PC Gordon Warren, as he then was, refused to attend an improper all-night party at Sutton police station. Mr. Warren was subsequently penalised for his proper behaviour and retired from the force not long after.
In July 1982, an inference was drawn that he was mentally ill. That was done in his annual qualification report written by then Inspector Bourne-Taylor. In January 1985, a medical certificate on Mr. Warren was signed by a Dr. Bott, medical officer of the Metropolitan police, which alleged that my constituent was mentally ill. In January 1986, another medical certificate, which was subsequently found by the High Court to be unlawful, was signed by the same Dr. Bott stating that my constituent suffered from personality disorder and paranoid tendencies.
Having tried repeatedly with my help over those early years to get a satisfactory solution via political pressure on the Metropolitan police and on successive Home Secretaries in their role as police authority for the Metropolitan police, my constituent understandably chose to explore the possibilities of a legal remedy through the courts. That led him to take the matter to the High Court in May 1988 where, at the end of the hearing, he was awarded about £12,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal from the force, and his taxed costs.
In parenthesis, I should say that the Metropolitan police tried to settle the case in 1988, before it went to court, with an offer of £70,000 damages plus costs, which would have included £33,700 allocated from Mr. Warren's commuted pension, to which he had substantially contributed over the years.
That out-of-court offer was not acceptable to my constituent because, had he accepted it, he would have been bought off partly with his own money and he did not consider the sum to be adequate compensation for all that he had suffered at the hands of the Metropolitan police.
In June 1989, Mr. Warren took his case to the Court of Appeal, when he was awarded a further £3,500 damages and the Lord Justices made some deservedly complimentary remarks about him. Subsequently, my constituent sought my help again, in the hope that the pressure that could be exerted by his Member of Parliament would make a positive difference. The upshot was that in November 1990, the Metropolitan police offered Mr. Warren an ex

gratia payment of £50,000 to settle the grievance and to compensate for the harm done to him. Once again, that was not acceptable to Mr. Warren.
With my further help, pressure on the Metropolitan police was renewed, with the result that their ex gratia offer increased to £70,000 in the summer of 1991 following my strong representations to the then Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert.
Once again, my constituent understandably felt that that was another example of too little, too late—one characteristic of the whole sad story. Mr. Warren rejected the offer, not least because the suggested terms of the apology that was to accompany the payment were not adequate. At my constituent's request, I renewed my efforts after the 1992 general election.
The result of sustained pressure from me and others since then is the Metropolitan police's latest offer, made in February this year, of an ex gratia payment of £85,000 coupled with a certificate of service signed by Commissioner Condon, stating that Mr. Warren's police service had been exemplary, together with an endorsement of the earlier apology offered by Commissioner Imbert accepting that there was no truth in the allegations made against Mr. Warren and offering a full, unqualified apology.
Such progress as has been made towards a fair and final settlement owes much to the efforts of Sergeant Mike Bennett of the Metropolitan Joint Branch Board; Rev. Clive Taylor, former chaplain to the Metropolitan police; Dr. Ian Smith, my constituent's general practitioner; and Mr. Tony Judge, editor of the magazine Police.
Sergeant Bennett wrote in Police Review:
Gordon Warren's problem stems from a combination of the intransigence of those in authority, who have stuck together, and an ex-constable who had the effrontery to take them on.
Mr. Judge wrote in Police:
To this select band of brave, infuriating misfits, let me welcome Gordon Warren. By now, many of you will have heard the name. He was driven out of the Met after 28 years' unblemished and unblamed service, on a specious diagnosis of paranoia. It took him four years to get the High Court to overturn that disgraceful decision and award him a paltry £12,000 damages.
My constituent has for his part accepted that if a satisfactory package of apology, certificate and ex gratia payment can be put together, he will give his written undertaking not to pursue the matter further. The components of the possible settlement have been clearly identified by me and others. For clarification, they are a suitably generous ex gratia payment commensurate with the harm done to my constituent and the length of time that he suffered both physically and mentally; a certificate of exemplary service signed by Commissioner Condon; an endorsement by Commissioner Condon of the apology earlier offered by Commissioner Imbert; and, if all the foregoing are achieved, a written undertaking from Mr. Warren not to pursue the matter further. Obviously that fourth element is most important. I feel sure that when my hon. Friend the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will think that those are the right and just elements in any final settlement.
The real issue now, therefore, hinges first on the terms of the apology, which must be unqualified and explicitly recognise the wrong that the Metropolitan police has done to its former employee and my constituent, and secondly


on the level of the ex gratia payment in compensation to Mr. Warren, which must be sufficiently generous for the reasons that I stated.
I must leave the appropriate words of the apology for my constituent to agree, in consultation with representatives of the Metropolitan police. As to the sum of public money involved in the ex gratia payment, I have always pressed for a generous sum: first, to take full account of the harm done to my constituent by this long and tragic saga; secondly, to give the Metropolitan police a sporting chance to settle the matter once and for all and thus put behind them one of the shabbier episodes in their history.
My constituent, for his part, has always assured me that it is his personal honour and integrity that he wants recognised in a just and final settlement, and that he has not pursued his own cause for so long simply, or even principally, for material recompense. In the light of those factors and the fact that the final draft letter of apology —of which I have a copy—for Commissioner Condon's signature, is, in my eyes, fair, generous and unqualified, I believe that it should be possible, even after so many years of strife and misunderstanding, for men and women of integrity and good will to resolve this sad case once and for all.
To my way of thinking, the final paragraph of the letter, to which I have referred, strikes the right tone of accuracy, justice and humility on the part of the Metropolitan police. I very much hope, therefore, that Mr. Warren will be able to accept it as the key part of the overall settlement. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the interest of the House, I will quote the last paragraph of the letter that would come from Commissioner Condon. It reads:
The Metropolitan Police Service fully accepts that there was no truth in the allegations that you were mentally ill."—
"you" referring, not to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to my constituent, Mr. Warren—
In spite of the various efforts which have been made to correct matters, it is clear that you are entitled to a full apology which I unreservedly give.
Before I close, there is one aspect of the matter that I must place on record, at the repeated request of Mr. Warren. It concerns what did or did not happen to the allegations that he made, as long ago as 1983, against Inspector Bourne-Taylor, who was in charge of Sutton police station on the night of the improper party in April 1982; against Chief Superintendent Rideout, who was then the superior officer involved in subsequent decisions on the incident; and against Dr. Bott, the chief medical officer of the Metropolitan police, who signed the defamatory and untrue medical certificates relating to Mr. Warren. The key questions, to which my constituent has never been given satisfactory answers are these.
First, were Mr. Warren's 1983 allegations against those three individuals officially recorded and fully investigated? Secondly, was an investigating officer appointed, and did that officer give him an opportunity to make a full statement and hand over evidence supporting his allegations? Thirdly, was Mr. Warren informed of the result of those investigations in any way?
If my hon. Friend is not in a position today to provide those answers, I should be grateful if he would use his good offices to get answers to me and my constituent in due course.
In conclusion, at the end of this sorry saga, I hope that the Metropolitan police will swallow their misplaced institutional pride, and keep their own legal department

firmly under control, and that the Commissioner will seize this opportunity finally to revolve the issue on an honourable and fair basis. I pay tribute to those in the Metropolitan police—there have been many—who have striven for a fair settlement, but I cannot end without censuring the deplorable action of Inspector Bourne-Taylor, Chief Superintendent Rideout—as he then was—and Dr. Bott, who were the three individuals most directly responsible for this long catalogue of injustice to my constituent.
The main thing that my hon. Friend can do is strongly to advise our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is, of course, the police authority for the metropolis, to use all his influence to clinch the sort of settlement package that I have outlined, including, notably, a financial payment at a level sufficiently high to serve the interests of natural justice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening so attentively to what I had to say and I look forward to hearing from him a constructive and helpful response which will serve to bring relief to my constituent and restore to the Metropolitan police the reputation for fair and honourable treatment of their employees, which has been badly tarnished in this case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) for setting out so clearly and lucidly the case of his constituent, Mr. Gordon Warren. Mr. Warren will, I feel sure, appreciate the sustained support that my hon. Friend has given him throughout his long-running dispute with the Metropolitan police. I do not doubt that all hon. Members try to support their constituents whenever they feel that they have a legitimate grievance, but my hon. Friend sets an example to all of us by the energy, commitment and attention to detail that he has shown in this case.
My hon. Friend has already said that this is the longest-lasting grievance in his constituency files, dating back more than a dozen years. The matter is indeed complex and entangled, and I fear that what I have to say in reply to him may not allow his second oldest constituency case immediately to take the place of Mr. Warren's, but I hope that, on reflection, he and Mr. Warren may feel that the elements of a fair and reasonable settlement have finally moved into place and that this debate has acted as the catalyst for their successful combination.
There is not the time, nor I think the need, for me to rehearse the entire history of this very regrettable case or to go over all the ground that has been covered so well by my hon. Friend. There is now substantial agreement among all the parties where it matters. I believe that I owe it to my hon. Friend and his constituent to put that consensus on the record today.
First, there is complete agreement that Mr. Warren served with great credit throughout his career with the Metropolitan police. As my hon. Friend said, the Commissioner has made plain his intention to provide Mr. Warren with a certificate of service, again confirming his exemplary conduct. There is no question about that.
Secondly, there is complete agreement that Mr. Warren's compulsory retirement in 1986 resulted from a


medical certificate that was not sustainable in law. Moreover, there is complete acceptance of the decision of the medical referees that he was not mentally ill, despite what may have been implied in a staff report prepared about him, or as was certified by the Metropolitan police's chief medical officer.
Thirdly, and this follows clearly and absolutely from the first and second points that I have enunciated, it is accepted by all parties that Mr. Warren was unfairly treated and unlawfully retired from the Metropolitan police. His initial complaint was not properly handled, and I think that that is accepted by everyone.
The Metropolitan police were fundamentally responsible for the chain of events which led to Mr. Warren's unlawful retirement. They accept that fact, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolitan police, and so do the Government. Nor is there any question but that Mr. Warren should have redress: the question is precisely what and precisely how much.
There is an important fourth point that cannot and should not be overlooked and which I hope that Mr. Warren will accept must form part of the consensus. I refer to the fact that the whole matter of the unlawful retirement, including the investigation of Mr. Warren's formal complaint in 1983, was examined by the High Court in 1988 and the Court of Appeal in 1989. The courts examined the conduct of the Metropolitan police and of Mr. Warren during the events surrounding his unlawful retirement. The judgment of the courts, which took account of the way in which the Metropolitan police handled Mr. Warren's complaints, must be central to deciding the form and content of the redress that Mr. Warren should receive.
I hope that that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend in the latter stages of his speech. If there is any room for doubt after I have concluded my remarks, I shall write to my hon. Friend to offer further clarification.
The point is simply this. Mr. Warren has had the judgment of the highest courts in the land. They have awarded him compensation for injustice. What we are debating today is an offer of settlement over and above what the High Court and the Court of Appeal awarded.
The final part of the consensus is that there should be two main elements—we have discussed the certificate already—to the final settlement between the Metropolitan police and Mr. Warren: first, an admission of fault and an apology by the Commissioner clearing Mr. Warren's good name; secondly, financial compensation.
First, with regard to the money element, in 1987 Mr. Warren was offered, with Home Office approval, as my hon. Friend has said, an ex gratia settlement of £70,000, of which approximately £34,000 represented commuted pension. The offer was rejected and Mr. Warren pursued his case by way of judicial review before the High Court. The court agreed, and the Metropolitan police accepted, that Mr. Warren had been unlawfully retired on medical grounds, but it refused to order reinstatement or to award exemplary or aggravated damages. Instead, he was awarded some £13,000 compensation for loss of overtime and earnings on top of the pension and payments already accepted.
Mr. Warren appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking

reinstatement and further damages. In 1989, the appeal was dismissed, though a further payment of £3,500 was ordered by the court. The Court of Appeal concluded that
in the circumstances of the case a modest sum would be proper".
Lord Justice Balcombe went on to say directly to Mr. Warren:
Looking at this case, as we have done, objectively, while I think we all appreciate the grievances you have felt … the police have behaved very properly after the initial problem was recognised.
Lord Justice Balcombe also referred to what he hoped was a recognition on Mr. Warren's part that there are
two sides to this particular story".
Mr. Warren was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords both by the Court of Appeal and, directly, by the House of Lords.
Mr. Warren was not, apparently, content with the judgment of the courts and he returned to a direct approach to the Metropolitan police. He sought an ex gratia payment. In November 1990, following careful consideration of the history of the case, an offer of £50,000 was made. Mr. Warren rejected the offer.
Mr. Warren and my hon. Friend then took the matter up with the then Home Secretary. A further full review of the case followed, as a result of which the then Commissioner concluded, and the Home Office agreed, that although there was no legal liability, it would be right to increase the offer to £70,000. This was a very generous offer, exceeding by far the sums contemplated by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and including provision for Mr. Warren's legal costs and a generous supplement to the sum already awarded for loss of earnings and overtime. Mr. Warren again rejected the offer.
It is essentially that final offer, uprated to take account of inflation, which was placed on the table again in February this year in a further attempt to resolve the matter. The uprating brought the final offer up to £85,000.
I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have gone as far as we can in authorising expenditure from the Metropolitan police fund. We have gone much further than the courts, and we have certainly gone further than reimbursement for loss of earnings and overtime. There is no possibility of going further. I trust that my hon. Friend will accept that if we were to do so we would risk flouting the judgment of the Court of Appeal as to what would be proper in the case.
With regard to the terms of the apology on which my hon. Friend expanded so helpfully, the position is straightforward. The Commissioner rightly wishes to offer Mr. Warren a full apology, endorsing what was earlier offered by Sir Peter Imbert and making it absolutely clear that, as the Court of Appeal put it, authority failed in its duty of fairness to Mr. Warren.
Mr. Warren received, in confidence, a draft of an apology. As my hon. Friend has said, Mr. Warren wrote to the Metropolitan police complaining that the terms of what was sent to him were not what he had been led to expect. The difficulty here, I believe, arose not because of any breach of good faith. I hope that Mr. Warren will accept, as is indeed the case, that the Commissioner had no wish to water down the terms of the apology.
I understand that the Metropolitan police have reconsidered the detailed wording of the apology to see whether a more acceptable formulation can be arrived at. I believe that it has been possible to adjust the wording in a way which fully reflects the Commissioner's wish to give


Mr. Warren the apology he deserves. The House will have noted the passage from the final draft letter that my hon. Friend quoted a few moments ago.
I very much hope that what I have said today, followed by an amended apology together with the certificate of exemplary service and £85,000, will prove acceptable to Mr. Warren. Although, as I have said, the Department

cannot properly approve any increase to the sum on offer, we stand ready to offer all the help we can to my hon. Friend and to his constituent in bringing this very regrettable affair to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock